Afghanistan Local Architecture Review

Key Findings on vernacular shelter designs, materials, and local building practices in Afghanistan

November 2020 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Key Findings  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shelter Construction After nearly 40 years of conflict and displacement, Afghanistan • Most interviewed homeowners preferred permanent brick remains one of the world’s most complex humanitarian crisis. or pakhsa (packed mud) flat roof shelters, mainly due to Shelter needs of displaced, host, and shock-affected populations the ease of construction and access to materials and skilled remain at the forefront of this crisis with over 6.6 million people labour needed to construct them. However, these shelters in need of Emergency Shelter and Non-food Item (ES/NFI) were reported to require materials that could only be found assistance, according to the Humanitarian Needs Overview for in markets and/or required special skills, suggesting that the 2021. Of these, 2.9 million are projected to be in need of emergency skills and materials needed for these shelter types may not shelter assistance, 2.2 million in need of transitional shelters, and always be readily available in all areas of the country. 5.8 million of shelter repairs or NFI assistance.1 • Most interviewed homeowners and FGD respondents Previous studies have highlighted how many emergency ES/NFI preferred shelters based on affordability and cost; needs are linked to an overall lack of resilience and heightened while stone and curved roof shelters were noted to be more vulnerability, where many poor families lack the resources to repair durable and provide better insulation than flat roof shelters, their homes following a major shock, often forcing homeowners into 2 the expense and skills required made other, cheaper and less debt that limit their ability to recover. The humanitarian community robust shelter types more desirable. has taken note of this link, highlighting in the Humanitarian Response Plan that transitional shelter responses can play a • Interviewed homeowners reported that tradition played a critical role in building homeowner resilience and keeping them very strong role in the choice of shelter and its associated both out of debt and of other, broader needs.3 materials. This helped to inform the finding that shelter designs and materials used had changed little from the However, despite the clear recognition for more transitional and shelter types identified in secondary sources, many of which permanent shelter responses, there is still a lack of understanding were published in the 1970s. The only major changes in of what types of responses would be most effective. Previous construction materials were a shift from woven reed mats studies have noted than many transitional or permanent shelter towards plastic sheeting, and the modest increased use of responses use materials that are not accessible or affordable in the metal for construction purposes. areas of response, or require skills or expertise not found within the beneficiaries' communities.4 • Among tent dwellers, the use of cotton tents tended to be more urban, and associated with displacement or poverty. While standard transitional and permanent shelter packages have 5 Black tents were more rural and often linked to nomadic been put together by a variety of organizations, these have not or semi-nomadic cultural practices, though some displaced always been designed with local shelter materials or regional homeowners used them as well. nuances in mind. In order to strengthen the ES/NFI Cluster's coordination of transitional and permanent shelter responses, Winterization and Comfort REACH conducted a detailed assessment of shelter types, building practices, and hazard mitigation measures across all 7 • Winter preparations were reported by most interviewed regions of Afghanistan. The assessment used a mixed-methods homeowners to have negative environmental and approach, combining structured individual interviews (IIs) and sociological effects. Gathering of wood and brush for fires semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs) with homeowners cut down Afghanistan's few forests at an unsustainable rate, on their shelter types and local building practices, respectively, and and children are often needed to search for plastic and other detailed key informant interviews (KIIs) with local shelter experts, harmful materials to burn. that catalogued shelter designs and bills of quantity (BoQs). All • Most interviewed homeowners were aware of the negative respondents were non-displaced and internally displaced person effects these practices had, but due to a lack of money felt (IDP) homeowners, selected on the basis of their shelter types. The they had no other options in order to prepare for winter. assessment, conducted between 1-30 November 2020, covered 26 different shelter type variations in 21 districts spread across 16 • Cheaper masonry materials, such as pakhsa, sun-dried provinces. In total, 585 IIs, 64 FGDs, and 63 KIIs were conducted. bricks, were reported by FGD participants to be better at providing insulation in the winter and keeping the shelter All findings are indicative, rather than representative. The final cool in the summer than more expensive fired bricks. The results paint a contextualized picture of local shelter types and use of kaghil, a mud plaster, was also reported to improve their associated construction and repair methods, as well as insulation in shelters, regardless of the construction materials climatic mitigation measures across Afghanistan. The following key used. findings are of note:

1. UNOCHA, 2021, Humanitarian Needs Overview, November 2020. 4. Samuel Hall, Evaluation of UNHCR Shelter Assistance Programme, 2012. 2. REACH, Afghanistan: ES-NFI Assessment, 2019. 5. UNHCR, Shelter and Settlement Section, Shelter Design Catalogue, January 3. UNOCHA, Humanitarian Response Plan: Afghanistan, 2019 - 2021, December 2016. 2020.

2 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Repair and Maintenance Materials Used • In addition to shelters themselves; most homeowners did not • Interviewed homeowners noted that materials used came have the resources to repair their own shelters, suggesting from a variety of different sources; most wood, fabric, reeds, that the loss of a permanent shelter was a major factor for rope, and other materials were purchased in markets, while homeowner vulnerability. masonry was found in nature. The use of particular types of each material varied considerably by region. • Interviewed homeowners reported that most households, even those living in permanent shelters, to be highly vulnerable to • Most homeowners reported using sub-standard materials for major shocks, primarily due to a lack of financial resources to repair and winterization. This was primarily due to a lack pay for shelter construction, repairs and winterization. of money; homeowners reported that they would buy better materials if they could afford it. • Interviewed homeowners noted similar constraints to shelter repairs as for constructing shelters; adequate materials were • Many homeowners reported that some of the materials that often unavailable or very expensive, and many homeowners they used to build their shelters were inherited; many did discussed having to choose between shelter repair and buying not have the money or resources to procure new materials enough food to eat. Many homeowners described being one for new shelters or repairs. When a shelter or its materials major shock away from being trapped in a cycle of poverty. were lost or damaged, homeowners reported that it was often difficult to replace these items, diminishing their Hazard Resistance resilience and increasing overall vulnerability. • Hazard resistance was a large influence on shelter design Regional Variations and materials, and most interviewed homeowners connected stronger shelters with stronger protection from both • According to interviewed homeowners, most differences natural hazards and other human beings. The preference in building practices and overall shelter needs tended to for permanent shelters over temporary shelters like tents or vary based on the shelter type, rather than specific regional huts was often connected to safety. differences. However, specific shelter type variations tended to be more prevalent depending on the surrounding environment, • Curved roof structures were associated with hazard resistance suggesting that location plays an indirect role in shelter needs. by FGD participants, and their thick walls and domed roofs Specifically: were noted to provide greater comfort in summer and insulation in winter. In addition, these structures were also reported to be • Curved roof shelters were more prevalent in the North and West due to far more resistant to earthquakes, flooding, and other natural an historic lack of access to sufficient lumber. hazards. However, they were less preferred due to the skills • Flat roof shelters were more common in the East and South East due to and expenses needed to build them. better access to lumber. • Black tents were more common in the South and South East where • Participants in FGDs clearly linked their shelter concerns to temperatures were warmer; in northern regions, they were only used other sectors, primarily protection; poor shelter conditions during the summer. were associated with protection concerns. This was due • Stone shelter variations were more common in mountainous areas like to both a lack of security measures and reported harassment the North East, South East, and Central regions, where stone is more from more well-off homeowners, due to cultural stigmas common, and materials for bricks may be harder to access. associated with poverty. • Cotton tents were mostly used in urban environments by poor homeowners who could not afford to live in permanent shelters. • Plinths tended to be used for permanent structures only, primarily in disaster-prone regions like the North, North-East, Conclusions East, South-East, and West regions. KIs noted that plinths provided protection against both earthquakes and flooding, Overall, the assessment findings suggest that current permanent which were the most common natural hazards reported. shelter needs have multi-sectoral implications; a well-built, permanent shelter with secure land tenure and comfort addresses Plot Arrangement: not only the shelter needs of a homeowner, but also supports in addressing some protection, livelihood, and food security needs • The majority of interviewed homeowners reported that they as well. However, the prevalence and access to the materials, had built their shelters in the only location available to skills, and local knowledge to both construct and repair shelters them, either because they owned the land or were allowed vary considerably based on local markets, the environment, and to build there. At the same time, most were concerned about the communities themselves. Moreover, the lack of resources and being too far from economic resources and public services. impoverished conditions that most Afghans face greatly constrains • Most homeowners constructed more than one building on their abilities to meet these needs on their own. Any assistance their plots, which were designed to serve multiple different aimed at alleviating these gaps for beneficiaries needs to be based purposes, including housing for separate genders, livestock, on the local materials, building designs, construction practices, and and storage. Nearly all homeowners reported also constructing local knowledge in order to be an effective durable solution that a latrine or free standing kitchen. local communities will be able to take ownership of and ensure their long term impact.

3 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Contents Interior of fired brick and timber beam curved roof shelter type variation, Kandahar District, Kandahar Province. Small arches made from fired EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 bricks are supported by wood beams. This is a style of construction unique to Kandahar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS ...... 5 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ...... 7 FINDINGS ...... 10 SHELTER CONSTRUCTION ...... 11 WINTERIZATION AND COMFORT ...... 13 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ...... 14 HAZARD RESISTANCE ...... 15 PLOT ARRANGEMENT ...... 18 MATERIALS USED ...... 19 REGIONAL PROFILES ...... 24 CENTRAL ...... 25 EAST ...... 26 About the ES/NFI Cluster NORTH ...... 27 The Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items (ES/NFI) Cluster NORTH EAST ...... 28 supports the provision of basic lifesaving services by coordinating SOUTH ...... 29 the delivery of emergency, transitional, and permanent shelter solutions, as well and winterization assistance. This helps to SOUTH EAST ...... 30 mitigate further protection risks and allows for safer and more WEST ...... 31 dignified living conditions. The ES/NFI Cluster supports these efforts through the development of tools, management of COUNTRY HOUSING PROFILE ...... 32 assessments, and development of coordinated strategies to COUNTRY PROFILE ...... 33 improve cooperation between humanitarian organization and HOUSING SECTOR ...... 36 government entities. CONSTRUCTION SECTOR ...... 38 For more information please visit the Shelter Cluster Website or contact the ES/NFI Cluster directly at: coord.afghanistan@ UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ...... 39 sheltercluster.org NATIONAL DISASTER RISK ...... 39 REDUCTION STRATEGY ...... 39 About REACH ES/NFI CLUSTER ...... 41 REACH is a joint initiative of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives -and the UN GENDER ISSUES ...... 41 Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). SHELTER TYPE PROFILES ...... 42 REACH’s mission is to strengthen evidence-based decision SUMMARY TABLE ...... 43 making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. By doing REGIONAL COSTS ...... 44 so, REACH contributes to ensuring that communities affected by ANNEXES ...... 98 emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support to and within the framework of inter- ANNEX I: SAMPLING FRAME ...... 99 agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information ANNEX II: SECONDARY DATA REVIEW ...... 100 please visit our website: www.reach-initiative.org. ANNEX III: FGD TOOL ...... 101 For more information, please visit the REACH Resource Centre ANNEX IV: KII TOOL ...... 103 or contact REACH directly at: [email protected] and follow REACH on Twitter @REACH_info ANNEX V: SHELTER DESIGN TOOL ...... 115 Cover Photo: Village of cliff-side flat roof shelter types in the Panjshir Valley, Anawa District, Panjshir Province, November 2020.

4 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Exterior of Gumbazi curved roof shelter type variation, Bamyan District,  Bamyan Province. The Gumbazi uses thick, sun-dried brick walls to support a GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS roof made of specially designed sun-dried bricks. This structure is renowned for its durability and comfort, but its construction often requires materials and skills Glossary that most households cannot afford. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Traditional unit of measurement, equivalent to Biswa 2,000 square metres Traditional unit of measurement, equivalent to 5 Biswaasa square metres Bukhari Simple stove used to produce heat in winter Buria Woven mat made of flattened reeds Reeds tied together with twine or rope to make Chegh a mat Goraghil Mud-based mortar for constructing shelters Gypsum Mortar mixture used to seal masonry structures Traditional unit of measurement, equivalent to Jireeb 40,000 square metres Straw and mud mixture used to protect masonry Kaghil from the elements Municipality Urban administrative district Interior of Lacheq hut shelter type variation, Khulm District, Balkh Province. Wooden struts are tied tether and placed on top of wooden lattice Pakhsa Compacted mud used for construction walls to create a frame, over which felt and other fabrics are stretched. The Palas Woven panels made of goat hair construction is similar to how yurts are made. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Device used for heating; a table and blanket are Sandali placed over a large bowl of charcoal. People sit under the blanket to stay warm Government-owned company in construction Tasadee sector Waqf Land donated for charitable purposes Acronyms

ARAZI Afghanistan Independent Land Authority BOQ Bill of Quantity CAD Computer Aided Design CGI Corrugated Galvanized Iron ES/NFI Woven mat made of flattened reeds FGD Emergency Shelter/Non-Food Items IDP Internally Displaced Person KII Key Informant Interview MORR Ministry of Refugees and Repatriations MUDH Ministry of Urban Housing and Development ODI Overseas Development Institute NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PPE Personal Protective Equipment UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United National High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Office for the Coordination of UNOCHA Humanitarian Affairs WFP World Food Programme

5 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Brick and wood frame walls flat roof shelter type variation, Asadabad  INTRODUCTION District, Kunar Province. The style of shelter is designed to be earthquake resistant, and is also referred to as a "Kabuli" house. Although the shelter is associated with pre-war Kabul, it is found in many locations where earthquakes After 19 years of continued crisis and nearly 40 years of are common. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. displacement, Afghanistan remains one of the world’s most complex humanitarian crisis. The shelter needs of displaced, host, and shock-affected populations reflect this complexity, as shown by the results of the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) for 2021. Indeed, the HNO noted in 2021 that 6.6 million people in Afghanistan were in need of Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Item (NFI) (ES/ NFI) assistance. Of these, 2.9 million were in need of emergency shelter assistance, 2.2 million were in need of transitional shelters, and 5.8 million needed shelter repairs or NFI assistance.1 However, these needs also link to broader socioeconomic issues involved with early recovery. Shelter is often the largest expense that a family has; a 2019 assessment by REACH found that for poor families, a shock that destroyed their shelter could often force to ensure that they are more sustainable. An evidence-based a household into debt that limited their ability to recover.2 The same prioritisation combined with a contextualised response strategy study concluded that while materials are widely available, 64% of will ultimately enable the ES/NFI Cluster to effectively address the households are unable to afford materials to repair their homes2 complex and developing shelter needs in Afghanistan. To address and many households often have to choose between purchasing this gap, REACH conducted a detailed review of vernacular shelter repairs and food.2 As a result, shelter responses can have architecture types and construction methods across all seven very large effects on alleviating multi-sector needs, particularly regions of Afghanistan. The findings from this research provides for poor households. The humanitarian community in Afghanistan the ES/NFI Cluster with an inventory of local shelter types, the has taken note of this, recently highlighting in the Humanitarian associated material and skill related costs that are required to Response Plan (HRP) that a move to transitional [from temporary] construct them, and ultimately a guide on how to adapt the existing shelter responses can help households in “building their resilience response strategy to better accommodate region-specific needs. and preventing recovering communities from slipping back into 3 This report is structured into six sections. The first section details humanitarian need.” Many organizations have already done this the research methodology and design used by REACH in this by developing detailed transitional and permanent shelter designs. assessment of Afghanistan's shelter types. The second and third However, although the humanitarian community has recognized sections present the primary data collected in the assessment: The the need for more transitional and permanent shelter responses, second section summarizes shelter types, building practices, and there is still a lack of understanding of what types of responses methods of hazard mitigation at a country-level. The third section would be most effective, and how cultural differences in materials, details the variations in shelter types and building practices in building practices, and preferences may play a role in the overall each of the seven regions in Afghanistan. Following this, the fourth durability and use of shelters. Previous assessments of shelter section uses secondary data to provide a brief country profile of responses have found that while shelter responses often provide Afghanistan’s geography, demography, climate and the Afghanistan many materials that are not always available, additional costs housing market's opportunities and challenges. The fifth section of for local materials and construction often made the construction the report compiles the findings into profiles of local shelter type of new shelters difficult if not impossible for some beneficiaries.4 variations, including designs and bills of quantity (BoQs). Finally, a While standard transitional and permanent shelter packages have series of annexes at the end present details on sampling and tools been put together by a variety of organizations,5 these have not used in the assessment. always been designed with local shelter materials or regional nuances in mind. Creating a holistic and more effective delivery of shelter assistance requires a greater understanding of existing local shelter architecture design and building techniques, which can be used to modify existing humanitarian and government response designs

1. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), 2020. 2021, Humanitarian Needs Overview, November 2020. 4. Samuel Hall, Evaluation of UNHCR Shelter Assistance Programme, 2012. 2. REACH, Afghanistan: ES-NFI Assessment, 2019. 5. UNHCR, Shelter and Settlement Section, Shelter Design Catalogue, January 3. UNOCHA, Humanitarian Response Plan: Afghanistan, 2019 - 2021, December 2016.

6 AFGHANISTANEMERGENCY SHELTER, LOCAL ARCHITECTURE NON-FOOD ITEMS REVIEW & WINTERIZATION ASSESSMENT November 2020 Map 1: Locations of primary data collection at district level  METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

 RESEARCH DESIGN To address this knowledge gap, in coordination with the National ES/NFI Cluster, REACH conducted an in-depth assessment of local building practices, shelter designs, and materials across all seven regions of Afghanistan. Shelter experts were identified as Key Informants (KIs) and homeowners were interviewed by Individual Interviews (IIs) based on the shelter type variations that they lived in; KIs and homeowners were interviewed regardless of their displacement status. The assessment used qualitative and quantitative methods to capture the breadth of shelter types across Afghanistan while ensuring that the study findings are grounded in the community’s experience. The following research methods were selected to allow a deeper insight into shelter practices across Sampling Afghanistan: The following seven primary types of shelters in Afghanistan were 1) Secondary data review assessed, as identified by Szabo & Barfield (1991): caves, black 2) IIs with homeowners tents, cotton tents, yurts, huts, curved roof permanent structures, 3) Shelter design interviews with shelter expert KIs and flat roof permanent structures. Using these sources, REACH 4) FGDs with homeowners devised a sampling frame of parent shelter types and the different shelter type variations of each, adopting the framework from Szabo Secondary Data Review and Barfield (1991). REACH then worked with its field teams to identify which districts shelter types from the secondary data To begin the study, from 1st – 15th October 2020, a review of review were still present in, and which were accessible for face- existing literature was conducted. This focused on the different to-face data collection. The sampling frame was also updated with shelter types in Afghanistan, which regions they were present in, new shelter types identified by the field teams as well. and their local building practices. A table indicating this information was created and used by field staff for validating whether these In total, REACH identified 26 shelter type variations, which were shelter types were still present, and can be found in Annex II. This used as the unit of analysis for the KI and II tools. All KIs and review also assisted in identifying the appropriate methodology homeowners were selected based on the presence of each shelter and design for the survey and FGD topic guide. type variation in each region, which was based on the findings from the secondary data review in Annex II. After identifying the Three key sources informed this study: location, enumerators, led by a field engineer, would identify the • Albert Szabo and Thomas Jefferson Barfield, 1991. Afghanistan: shelter types and speak with their owners to conduct the IIs. A total An atlas of indigenous domestic architecture of 9 IIs per shelter type variation per region were conducted to • Oliver, P. ed., 1997. Encyclopaedia of vernacular architecture of ensure data reliability and validity and the data was analysed as a the world (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press proportion of all responses. • The Encyclopædia Iranica Table 1: Sampling Frame of Shelter Type for Data Collection Shelter Types # of Variations East South East South West North North East Central Black Tents 4 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 Cotton Tents 3 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 Yurts6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huts 5 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 Cave 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Curved roof Permanent 3 0 0 47 1 2 0 1 Flat roof Permanent 10 7 6 3 47 2 4 5 Total 26 8 11 12 7 6 7 9

6. Due to climatic conditions and nomadic movement, this shelter type could not 7. Some shelter type variations were assessed more than once. be assessed.

7 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Due to the extensive workload involved in creating, formatting Table 2: Number of Interviews by Region and processing design schematics, 1 shelter design interview Region Shelter KIIs FGDs was done per shelter type variation per region. These KIs were Design identified through conversation with community leaders, who Interviews identified shelter experts in their communities. In regions where East 8 72 8 a structure was only recorded as being present in one or two South East 11 99 8 provinces, or security concerns prevented movement to certain South 13 117 8 provinces, additional IIs and shelter design KIIs were conducted West 9 81 10 from the same provinces to ensure robustness of results. North 6 54 10 To ensure a limited number of FGDs, the parent shelter type North East 7 81 10 was used as the unit of analysis. FGDs were arranged with Central 9 81 8 local communities in which the shelter types were present, and Total 63 585 62 homeowners of each shelter type were selected to participate. All discussions were disaggregated by gender. In total, one FGD was October, the field engineers trained staff in Central, South East, conducted per shelter type per gender per region. and East Regions. Between 1 – 5 November, engineers in North, West, North East, and South Regions trained the data collectors. In order to ensure a regionally diverse sample, REACH conducted a security assessment to identify which districts were safe to In total, 28 II Enumerators, 30 FGD Facilitators and 30 FGD conduct fact to face data collection for each shelter type variation, transcribers for the FGDs were recruited for this assessment. while also ensuring that all shelter type variations identified in All data for this assessment was collected in Dari or Pashto and the sampling frame would be assessed. In total 21 districts in translated into English by the respective transcriber or facilitator 16 provinces across all 7 regions were selected for assessment, before being sent to the Assessment Officer for analysis. ensuring a diverse coverage of indicative findings country-wide. The full table of these data collection locations is in Annex I.  PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION Primary Data Collection The following primary data collection methods are described below All primary data collection for this assessment was conducted in detail: in person between 1 – 30 November 2020. Verbal consent was Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) obtained before participants took part in the research. Shelter types were assessed in-person. The shelter design KIIs included One facilitator and one transcriber were present at each FGD. photography, drawing detailed architectural designs, while the Two semi-structured FGDs were conducted focusing on one of FGDs and IIs were conducted with adult household members. the seven shelter types per region with homeowners. FGDs were Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was provided divided by gender. Each FGD lasted approximately one hour with for in-person data collection and social distancing measures were 3-5 participants to allow for physical distancing. These discussions adhered to in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.8 explored shelter building practices and resilience strategies and aimed to collected rich, detailed data which can provide context to Regional field engineers were trained in Kabul between 18 – 20 the quantitative findings. October, and then returned to their field bases and trained the 88 enumerators, FGD facilitators and transcribers. Between 25 – 29

Table 3: Research Objective and Unit of Analysis per Method Method Focus Group Discussion Individual Interviews Shelter Design KIIs 62 FGDs # of Respondents 585 63 3-5 people per FGD Understand common shelter building Identify common materials & techniques Document design schematics, Objective practices and resilience strategies for used and preferred for shelter construction bills of quantities, and photos of shelter construction and repair and repair each shelter type variation Unit of Analysis 1 of 7 shelter types Each shelter type per region assessed x3 1 structure per region 2 per shelter type per region Sample Size 9 Is per shelter type per region Design schematics: 1 KI per 1 per gender shelter type per region

8. REACH, SOPs for Data Collection during COVID-19,May 2018.

8 AFGHANISTANEMERGENCY SHELTER, LOCAL ARCHITECTURE NON-FOOD ITEMS REVIEW & WINTERIZATION ASSESSMENT NovemberDecember 20202019 Shelter Design KIIs • Collecting data in November meant that some shelter types (particularly mobile shelters) had been moved or taken down A total of 63 shelter design interviews were conducted. One for the winter season. As a result, no yurts, and several hut interview was conducted with one KI for each shelter type variation and tent shelter variations could not be assessed, or did not in each region. These structured interviews took approximately include the same geographic diversity as planned. 90 minutes. Enumerators collected information on architectural designs, bills of quantity and design choices with pen and paper. • Poor weather in the North East region of the country led to This information was transcribed by the field teams into Computer a number of flight cancellations, forcing the cancellation of a Aided Design (CAD) designs, tabular Excel-based BOQs, and a planned shelter design assessment in Kunduz, lowering the catalogue of photos of each shelter type variation. total shelter design KIIs to 63. Individual Interviews (IIs) with Homeowners • Insecurity throughout the country limited data collection to relatively safe districts. Although the data is indicative of the A total of 585 structured interviews were conducted with overall country situation, it should also be taken into account homeowners to understand what materials and techniques were that the views of populations living in hard to reach or otherwise used and preferred during construction for their own shelter highly inaccessible districts are not included. situations. Each interview took approximately 30 minutes and were conducted using a smart-phone based kobo tool. These interviews • FGD facilitators often did not probe deeply on social or cultural offered an insight into plot arrangement and the environmental meanings of specific responses, sometimes limiting the and security conditions of the shelters that the communities live in. understanding of the particular contexts in which certain FGD The interviews focused specifically on the choice and availability responses were relevant. of materials, skills required, construction and repair techniques, plot locations, and if the shelter was the most preferred option and • The transcription used for the FGDs by transcribers were why. To ensure data validity and reliability, 9 IIs were conducted summaries of the discussions, and did not include direct per shelter type variation per region and the median response was quotes. As a result, qualitative findings should not be taken as taken as the final response for each shelter type in the province. the exact statements from FGD participants. This quantitative data was used to provide breadth and complement Interior of jat cotton tent shelter type variation, Aybak District, Samangan the qualitative data collected in the FGDs. Province. Originally named after the Jat people, who used modified prefabricated tents from Pakistan, the shelter type now refers to any home-made Table 4: Software Used for Analysis tent in Afghanistan. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Method Software KIIs R9 SD Interviews R9 Shelter Designs & BOQ AutoCAD10 & Microsoft Excel FGDs NVivo 6411 Data Analysis Data analysis took place between 2 December - 31 January. The quantitative data was cleaned from 1 - 21 December and FGDs were transcribed 1 - 23 December by the REACH data team. All design schematics and BoQs were drawn in CAD and entered into excel from 1 – 21 December by each region’s field engineer. The designs and photos were checked by an engineering team in Kabul. The Assessment Officer coded the FGDs using NVivo and entered the data into a saturation grid from 17 – 30 January. Limitations: Research Methods and Design • While the data is very comprehensive, and REACH made sure to have as geographically diverse a sample as possible, the data is not representative. It should only be considered indicative of particular shelter types or shelter type variations in specific regions.

9. R is a programming language and software environment for statistical 10. AutoCAD is a computer-aided design and drafting software application computing and graphics 11. NVivo is a qualitative data analysis computer software package

9 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

FINDINGS

Above: Baluch black tent shelter type variation, Kandahar District, Below: Herati cotton tent shelter type variation, Injil District, Herat Kandahar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

10 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Brick or pakhsa (rural) flat roof shelter type variation, Behsud District,  SHELTER CONSTRUCTION Nangarhar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

 Construction Responsibility

80% of interviewed homeowners reported 80+20C that they constructed their shelter themselves This proportion was slightly lower for homeowners with permanent curved or flat roof shelters, who reported needing additional financial and labour support, particularly from people with special skills for construction.  part of their migratory livelihoods and culture, which required them Construction Skills to be mobile, such as herding cattle. They were concerned that if % of interviewed homeowners reporting that the following shelter they moved to a permanent house, they would lose their livelihood. types required people with special skills to help construct them:1 These participants also noted that these tents required less money 100 for repairs, and could be taken with them if they needed to flee. Cave 100%

100 • Many participants living in tents, particularly cotton tents in urban Curved Roof 100% areas, explained they could not afford rent for permanent shelters. 96 Hut 96% 88  Reason for Shelter Choice Flat Roof 88%

73 • Many participants reported preferring whatever shelter types they Black Tent 76% could afford, which was often determined by what materials could 41 be acquired for free, either through foraging, home production, or Cotton Tent 42% inheriting materials and building practices for their shelters % of interviewed homeowners reporting that special construction • FGD participants living in tents reported preferring tents to permanent brick shelters. Many FGD participants highlighted structural skills were required, by entity who provided the required skill:1 poverty and livelihoods constraints that prevented them from Member of the village or community 70% changing shelters. Permanent shelters were often associated with Friend or family member 57% homeowners with means or were inherited, while those in tents often could not afford a permanent shelter due to a lack of resources. A local business in the village 13% • The high cost of materials was a decisive factor in all FGDs in A business in the province centre 13% determining shelter choice. Many FGD participants were widows, Sourced from outside the province 2% unemployed, disabled or returnees and had no stable income. They A business in the district centre 4% constructed their shelter with whatever materials they could salvage for free, which were often substandard and poor. NGO support 1% • For those who had the financial means to choose their shelter type, • IIs with permanent shelter and hut owners noted that special skills most preferred flat roof permanent shelters and based their decisions were more likely to be needed to construct their shelters. These on the shelter’s ability to withstand extreme weather (e.g. rain, skills were usually provided by another member of the village wind, dust and snow) and to stay cool in the summer. or community, or a family member or friend. Despite the close • Nomadic FGD participants living in mobile shelters highlighted the relation, homeowners still needed to provide money and importance of moving the shelter in times of crisis or hazardous resources for construction. weather as the reason for preferring a mobile shelter. • Many FGD participants reported experiencing a lack of money and • Participants living in permanent shelters explained that their shelters resources, which prevented them from constructing new shelters protected them from harassment and provided privacy that beyond those they already had, and that unless their economic others could not. This included the presence of women's only situation changed, they could not afford to maintain another shelter spaces. type. As a result, few FGD participants reported having a particular shelter preference, as they would not be able to afford it anyway. • Some FGD participants in black tents noted that their tents were a

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

11 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Lacheq hut shelter type variation, Khulm District, Balkh Province. Shelters  Shelter Preference like this are typically used in the summer months, and then abandoned for permanent shelters in the winter. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November • FGD participants preferred the tents provided by UNHCR and NGOs 2020. because they were reportedly larger and the plastic material protected them from the rain and snow. Participants preferred mobile shelters due to the conflict, evictions, and hazardous weather. • Many FGD participants who preferred permanent shelters preferred them to be made of stronger materials like steel and fired brick to protect families from threats including thieves, animals, and hazardous weather, and associated these materials with safety and stability. • If participants owned their land, they usually preferred flat roof shelters as the preferred shelter, highlighting the importance of land in providing social and economic stability. If they did not own their land, most FGD participants preferred mobile shelters that could be moved in case of eviction. • Cotton tents were reported by FGD participants to be most commonly used by IDPs in urban settings. These participants preferred to have permanent shelters, and were only living in a tent because they couldn’t afford a permanent shelter. • Many FGD participants reported that they were hosting family members who were displaced. For this reason they preferred larger shelters than they presently had to prevent inter-household conflicts. • Most displaced FGD participants were not willing to return to their place of origin. One participant explained that they felt safe from conflict and supported by the host community. According to interviewed homeowners, permanent flat roof • FGD participants living in flat roof permanent shelters chose these shelters were preferred for the following reasons:1 shelter types as they were warmer than the other shelter types they could afford. However, both II and FGD participants noted that  It is safer/more secure 97% these shelters require extensive maintenance, including thatching roofs and reinforcing the ceiling with plastic and iron sheeting, to  It lasts longer 85% prevent the ceiling from collapsing from the moisture damage caused by rain and snow. This often required skills that homeowners'  It protects against the climate better 72% household members did not have, and could often be expensive. Permanent flat roof shelters were preferred for the following reason: Permanent Flat Roof Shelter Preference  • Most FGD participants identified flat roof shelters as their preferred shelter choice. This was both because of the social and 82% of interviewed homeowners reported environmental protection that they provided, and how common they were across the country. Participants noted that it was easy to that, regardless of shelter type, they preferred find construction and repair materials in markets, as well as to 82+18C a flat roof permanent shelter type find the skilled labour needed to construct them. The main reason that they did not construct this shelter type was • Several FGD participants noted that curved roof structures were a lack of money to afford the materials for construction and more durable and offered better security and protection from the the associated skills required to construct the shelter. elements than flat roof shelters. However, these shelters were too expensive both due to materials and the specialized skills required to construct them. As a result, they preferred cheaper and easier to construct flat roof shelters, suggesting that flat roof shelters constituted something of a balance between a robust and cost-effective structure.

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

12 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 • Many participants reporting having no clear coping mechanisms  WINTERIZATION AND COMFORT for winterization, and reported praying for safer shelters, and protection from hazardous weather. • FGD participants reported that parents often relied on their children  Methods of Winterization to support in winter preparations. It was commonly reported that % of interviewed homeowners reported using the following children worked in neighbour’s houses in exchange for old cloths preparations to prepare their shelters for winter:1 and tarpaulin to burn. Other FGD participants noted that in urban 65 environments, children often collect garbage in the streets to Use more blankets inside 65% burn for fuel. 63 Buy stove or fuel 63% • Many FGD participants noted that poor people did not have the 33 resources to prepare ahead of time for summer or winter, and were Add insulation to shelter 33% constantly struggling to find food and deal with their immediate 29 needs, which prevented any kind of preparations for winter. Other Upgrade shelter construction 29%

15 FGD participants noted that they did no winterization due to a lack Reinforce foundation of shelter 15% of money. 6 • FGD participants that were able to save for winter noted that as Move to warmer areas 6% much as a third of their income was needed in order to purchase fuel to heat their homes in winter. • Most interviewed homeowners reported either using more • IIs with hut, black tent, and cotton tent homeowners showed that individual insulation, like blankets, or buying fuel to prepare for additional blankets were more likely to be used, either by the winter; improvements to the shelter were likely more effective occupants or to make a thicker wall. in improving insulation and resilience to the elements, but were less • Permanent shelter owners were more likely to report improving the likely reported, probably due to their overall cost. shelter and buying fuel as a winterization method. This was less • A majority of FGD participants noted challenges in keeping warm common for curved roof owners, likely because curved roof shelters in the winter. People often relied on scavenging materials for fuel were often constructed to be better insulated to begin with, and and trying to reinforce walls with mud insulation to keep warm. therefore needed fewer upgrades. • Regardless of shelter type, most interviewed homeowners reported needing additional stoves and fuel to survive the winter.

 Winterization by Shelter Type Shelter Type Primary Winterization Measures Reported by Respondents, by Shelter Type1 Blankets 67% • Insulation of tent with additional blankets and clothes. • Heat the shelter at night using a Sandali and burning animal dung. • Migrate to provinces close to Pakistan border annually; many FGD participants noted Black Tent Upgrading Shelter 63% that many homeowners migrate as their shelters and animals are not suited for the Construction cold weather. Blankets 73% • Heat the shelter at night using a Sandali.* • Increase insulation of tent with blankets, and use additional blankets at night. Cotton Tent • Collect garbage for fuel. Buying Stove & Fuel 57% • Migrate to nearby, warmer provinces on an annual basis. Buying Stove & Fuel 49% • Thicken walls with mud and insulate with plastic sheeting. • Burn fuel to keep the shelter warm at night. Most homeowners prefer wood; Curved Roof Upgrading Shelter those without money burn coal, which was reported by FGD participants to cause 47% Construction asphyxiation due to the smoke created. † Buying Stove & Fuel 69% • Bukharis are used to burn fuel at night. • Cover door with a cotton blanket for insulation. • Build a plastic room green house inside the house for warmth. Flat Roof • Purchase fuel; this sometimes required going into debt or borrowing from family Blankets 68% members. • Move into one room for body heat and to prevent the spread of cold air. Blankets 74% • Use insulating materials like felt as exterior insulation material; this was reported to be warmer than other materials. Hut • Participants in rural areas reported having more access to wood for fuel and wool for Buying Stove & Fuel 64% insulation, which could be foraged and did not need to be purchased from markets.

1. Respondents could select multiple options. † Bukhari is a traditional space heater * Similar system to 'Kotatsu' in Japan and 'Korsi' in Iran.

13 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 • Although homeowners reported that huts required special skills  REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE to repair, these skills were likely to not be needed to repair the hut. This is likely because the main skill needed was weaving, which is commonly found in Afghan communities.  Shelter Repair Ability • Although tent homeowners reported that repairing tents would % of interviewed homeowners reporting that they would be able to likely require special skills, particularly for roof construction and repair their shelter if it was damaged, by shelter type: the design of the shelter, the relatively simple design meant that 100 homeowners were more likely to be able to repair their shelters Cave 100% themselves. 93 Cotton Tent 93% • FGD participants explained they were unable to repair shelters in 89 the winter due to the hazardous weather. Instead, many reported Hut 89%

84 moving in with relatives until they could repair their shelters in the Black Tent 84% summer. 63 • FGD participants noted that the materials needed to repair Curved Roof 63%

55 damaged shelters were usually substandard materials, which Flat Roof 55% often deteriorated easily due to the materials' quality. A homeowner could not often afford to buy the materials or construction skills % of interviewed homeowners reporting that special skills were needed for a complete shelter repair. needed to repair the shelter if damaged, by shelter type: 90 • FGD participants living in cheaper shelters like huts and tents Cave 89% reported that they were able to buy cheaper materials from the 83 bazaar for repairs. However, it was also noted that these shelters Hut 83% 71 also needed to be repaired many times a year. Curved Roof 71% 65 • Cotton tents were reported by FGD participants to often be used Flat Roof 65% until they fell apart. Homeowners would weave the damaged 44 sections together over and over again. If the shelter was completely Black Tent 44% 24 destroyed, they would be unable to buy a new tent. Cotton Tent 24% • Many FGD participants in permanent shelters noted that the price of repair materials has increased, over time, making them less % of interviewed homeowners reporting the main reasons they affordable. They explained they would likely go into debt over 1 would be unable to repair their shelter if it was damaged: repairs or offer food to family members in exchange for support Requires special skills the household does not have 78% in repairing their shelters. No money to repair the shelter 69% • Nearly all FGD participants in permanent shelters noted that damage that went unrepaired would only get worse. Often, eroding walls The materials are difficult to find 29% would leave space for mice & insects to enter the shelter causing If the shelter is damaged it is no longer safe to live in 25% both illness and further damage to the walls. • While most interviewed homeowners reported that they would • Nearly all FGDs noted that the main challenge to repairing shelters be able to repair their shelter if it was damaged, similar to was the lack of access to quality shelter materials, and a lack of construction, this was much lower for curved roof and flat roof shelter money to afford even sub-standard materials for repair. Shelter owners. Special skills, particularly regarding roof repair, were repairs often had to be delayed due to the need to pay for other reported to likely be required to repair both permanent shelter necessities, most notably food forcing poorer homeowners to types. choose between their shelters and other necessities.

Table 5: % of interviewed homeowners reporting that special skills are needed to repair shelter if damaged, by shelter type:1 2 Special skills Black Tent Cave Cotton Tent Curved Roof Flat Roof Hut Design of shelter repair 71% 75% 82% 63% 77% 56% Weaving chegh/buria/thatching 21% 0% 6% 14% 35% 78% Construction of shelter foundation/walls/frame 46% 63% 41% 31% 57% 7% Making mortar, pakhsa, or bricks 32% 13% 6% 18% 47% 4% Roof construction 54% 63% 59% 96% 77% 40% Finding shelter materials 36% 13% 24% 12% 17% 24%

1. Respondents could select multiple options. normally have, and for whom a shelter specialist, either in the community or a 2. Special skills: Skills for constructing shelters that not every household would business, would need to perform. Respondents could select multiple options.

14 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020   HAZARD RESISTANCE Hazard Mitigation • Participants in FGDs often preferred brick shelters as they don’t require as much maintenance to resist environmental hazards as  Hazard Frequency other materials like pakhsa. • Participants who lived in curved roof and flat roof shelter types 92% of interviewed homeowners reported that preferred mud walls and large windows to allow for ventilation in the natural hazards were common in their area summer heat. Despite their thick walls, the sun-dried mud brick 92+8C construction of curved roof shelters was reported to do a better job at keeping occupants cool in the summer and warm in the % of interviewed homeowners reporting the most common winter than other shelter types. hazards:1 • A primary theme in the coping strategies participants used for hazards 61 was to work with nature, particularly among those who were  Sandstorm 61% 59 living in mobile shelters, including cotton tens. FGD participants  Flooding 59% reported building shelters into mountains or on flat lands to avoid 37  Earthquake 37% damage from natural hazards. Homeowners of mobile shelters also 36 reported migrating to warmer climates, using the breeze to cool their  Blizzard 36% shelter and rotating the shelter to face different directions based on 8  Landslide 8% the positions of the sun and wind in different seasons. • Permanent shelters tended to be built to better resist natural hazards, Seasonal challenges reported across shelter types in Afghanistan: but were still constructed in locations where the damage from natural hazards would not be as strong. Spring Rain causes the roof to collapse • IIs with homeowners showed that permanent shelters tended to Summer Dust causes illness include hazard mitigation as part of the shelter construction, including Winter Snow causes illness both the design of the shelter and the use of materials. This was particularly true for curved roof shelters, which were reported to be Natural hazards were reported by homeowners to be highly frequent built to be more resilient to natural hazards. across Afghansitan. However, the type and seasonality of different • Tent owners were more likely to report mitigating hazards by varied considerably by region. reinforcing the existing structure or trying to locate the shelter Jugi cotton tent shelter type variation, Jalalabad District, Nangarhar is less disaster-prone areas. Tent owners also reported designing Province. The tent is named after the Jugi, a nomadic people who used this their shelters and using disaster-resistant materials to mitigate unique style of tent. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. damage to shelters as well. • Cave homeowners reported not making any major modifications to their shelters, or trusting the design of the overall shelter to protect them.

% of interviewed homeowners reporting their most common hazard mitigation methods, by shelter type:1 Hazard Mitigation Black Tent Cave Cotton Tent Curved Roof Flat Roof Hut Design shelter to resist disasters 57% 50% 41% 76% 60% 61% Reinforce foundation of shelter 61% 0% 1% 23% 25% 13% Move shelter to less disaster-prone areas 23% 0% 37% 9% 23% 33% Use disaster-resistant shelter materials 54% 0% 26% 41% 37% 52% Dig drainage ditches 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% No preparation is done 2% 50% 32% 11% 18% 2% Other 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

15 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  Damage Resistance from Hazards

These practices of strengthening shelters were described by participants in FGDs. Reported techniques to strengthen shelter infrastructure and prevent damage from hazards3 Hazard Techniques

• FGD participants living in permanent shelters made from clay, mud and pakhsa noted that their shelters could not withstand wind and earthquakes, and were easily destroyed in earthquakes. • When building the shelter, FGD participants living in permanent shelters noted that they often constructed thicker walls, and used very thick wooden beams in the roofing. Earthquake  • Corner braces were reported to be used in the construction of permanent shelters to improve the shelter's overall resilience against earthquakes. • FGD participants living in tents reported digging the tent’s pillars deep into the soil to increase stability. It was also noted that tents are easy to reset if the shelter collapses. • FGD participants living in permanent shelters built with mud use thatching in the roof to prevent the mud cracking from snow build up. • A common method for improving insulation in permanent shelters reported by FGD participants was to cover the shelter with kaghil*, which helped trap heat in. Blizzard  • Interviewed homeowners reported that flammable materials were collected throughout the year tobe burned during the winter. • FGD participants reported they regularly remove snow from the roof before it can build up and cause damage to the shelters, and also add salt to the roof hourly to prevent build up. • FGD participants living in tents build a meter high wall from stone around the tent to protect it from wind Sandstorm blown particles.  • Many FGD participants noted the importance of growing vegetation to protect their shelter from the wind. • All FGD participants highlighted that living on flat land was crucial to prevent damage caused by flooding. • FGD participants who lived in tents reported digging walls around their tent to prevent flooding. • Many FGD participants dug canals to redirected water away from their shelter to prevent flooding. Flooding • FGD participants who lived in a curved roof shelter type reported adding a kaghil to the shelter's foundation  and walls to make the shelter more resistant to heavy rain. • During construction, FGD participants detailed digging the foundation at least 50cm into the ground to stabilize the shelter.

 Preferred Location • There was consensus across FGDs that flat land was the most favorable for plot location. This was mainly to avoid damage from natural hazards, including landslides, avalanches and flooding. • Community support was noted to be very important for identifying the right locations for shelters. Participants explained that their neighbours were often the first responders after a disaster, and that when a sudden disaster, such as earthquakes or flooding, occur it can take aid organisations as much as a week to deliver support.

 Vegetation • FGD participants noted that growing vegetation, such as trees and bushes, was a common strategy to strengthen the land the shelter was built on and protect the shelter occupants from natural hazards, as well as the elements more generally. • FGD participants who did not own their own land often reported that the landowner would not allow for vegetation to be grown. • Growing vegetation was not realistic for many FGD participants as they could not commit to caring for it. Tent dwellers, many of whom were displaced, noted that at any moment they may have to leave the area due to weather, security or eviction from the land, and that there often wasn't enough space to plant vegetation. Many FGD participants noted that their areas did not have sufficient watersupply for growing crops. • Cutting trees down was considered by most FGD participants to be bad for the environment, because they provide protection from the elements and pollution. However, participants also noted that due to a lack of resources, they often had no choice but to cut down the few available trees in order to survive, particularly to get fuel during the winter. • In some locations, participants reported trees to be a critical part of both the natural and social ecosystem, including growing trees to provide food, fuel, shelter construction materials and food for livestock.

3. Techniques described by participants in focus group discussions. * Mud and straw mix

16 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  Land Type  Plot Preference

% of interviewed homeowners reported constructing their % of interviewed homeowners reporting the types of other buildings shelters on the following land types: that are located on the shelter's plot of land:1 84 690190+ 60+ 60+ = Toilet/Latrine 84% + 69 69% Field or flat land 6% Top of hill Kitchen 69% 19% Hillside or slope 6% Next to river in valley 43 Water Source 43% % of interviewed homeowners reporting the reasons for choosing 39 their plot of land:1 Guest House 39% 36 66 Only land available 66% Animal Housing 36% 30 30 Protected from rain or wind 30% Separate Shelter for Women/Men 30% 27 21 Resistant to hazards 27% Storage Building 21% 26 9 Inherited 26%

4 Separate Shelter for Adults/Children 9% Near to market 4% 1 0 None 1% Cheapest land available 0% % of interviewed homeowners reporting how close shelters are built to • Most interviewed homeowners reported constructing their shelters one other plots of land: on a field or flat land; a large minority also constructed shelters on hillsides or slopes; however, the top of a hill or in valleys was rare. 58% Next to other plots This was primarily done to mitigate the risk of damage from natural Connected to other hazards like flooding or earthquakes. 17% shelters on the same plot • Most homeowners constructed their shelters on the only land available. Secondary factors were all related to hazard mitigation. 14% Between plots of land  Sharing Plots 11% Far away from other plots • Many FGD participants reported that they did not share their plots with other families as conflicts would occur. 58+171411AA • Nearly all homeowners interviewed reported a compound-like set up • Plot sharing was almost always linked to displacement; many FGD for their shelters with additional buildings for specific purposes. The participants explained that they would only share their plot if the most common buildings were toilets/latrines, kitchens, and water family was displaced and had nowhere else to stay. Many FGD sources. participants, including those living in tents, reported sharing their plot • Most homeowners constructed their shelters in plots next to one with family members at that time. another; this increased the overall security of the household. • FGD participants explained that it is not deemed acceptable for • Many FGD participants clarified that it often wasn't possible to females to share a plot with men they are not related to. For this invest in a permanent shelter unless they owned the land, as they reason, people primarily share plots with their relatives. could be forced to flee or be evicted at any time. This highlights • Some FGD participants noted that they would host their neighbors the importance of land ownership in having a safe, permanent as guests for a few nights if there was a social event; many shelter. Most participants would otherwise prefer their own land and compounds were constructed with an extra guest house for visitors. permanent shelter if they could afford it. • Most FGD participants across all shelter types explained they kept • Livelihood access was also reported to be a key component for their shelters close to one another for security as their shelters plot location; farmers explained that a permanent plot needed to often don’t have any security measures in place and are exposed be suitable for their livestock throughout the year to be used for to threats. This positioning acts as a community watch and allows inhabitation. households to look out for one another. Closer shelters also protected • Plots were preferred if they were closer to services and economic from wind and helped to increase warmth in the area. Only a small opportunities; these most important were noted as the following: number of participants commented on preferred distance between • Water for drinking shelters; all those who did suggested a space of approximately 3 • Vegetation to mitigate natural hazards meters between shelters as ideal. • Close to schools, employment opportunities and hospitals • A small number of FGD participants living in cotton and black tents • Separate kitchens were important to many FGDs as they prevented said that they built their shelters away from others. They explained smoke inhalation. they needed to keep a low profile to prevent being evicted.

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

17 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

 PLOT ARRANGEMENT  Social Concerns % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about their shelter's plot of land:1  Environmental Concerns 48 Lack of access to services 48% % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns 48 1 Poor economy 47% about their shelter's plot of land: 33 67 High crime 33% Exposed to Wind 68% 29 60 No concerns 29% Exposed to Cold & Blizzards 56% 12 51 Conflict 12% Prone to Flooding 51%

30 • Social concerns tended to be fairly consistent countrywide, Exposed to Sun & Drought 30% regardless of the region; lack of access to services and markets 30 were highest, followed by criminality or conflict. A sizable Earthquakes are Common 30% minority reported no concerns at all. 4 None 4%  Social Safety • Environmental concerns over the plot of land from homeowners • Most FGD participants interpreted the concept of safety to mean tended to reflect the common hazards in their region. Wind, cold/ 'economic security’. This meant having a stable income for basic blizzards, and flooding were most commonly reported. resources in the immediate and foreseeable future. When asked whether they felt safe, participants noted that as long as they are  Environmental Safety living in poverty, they do not feel safe. • FGD participants reported that children are often sent by their parents • Safety was defined as the following: to salvage waste (mainly plastic) for fuel or shelter construction. Most • Safety as land ownership participants were aware that the burning of this waste caused • Safety as economic security toxic fumes, but did not have the resources to buy less hazardous • Safety as protection from wildlife materials. • Safety as the community you live in respects you • FGD participants repeatedly noted their lack of resources for • Safety as protection from humidity winterization. Due to their lack of money, they reported mainly • Most FGD participants described feeling unsafe from the social gathering heating materials from the surrounding environment, abuse they were subject to in their communities. This was often such as salvaging wood from trees. Participants noted that they verbal harassment, which was often prompted by a societal prejudice were trading short term benefits in heat for long term livelihood against impoverished households. Participants linked their poverty losses due to deforestation, as well as increased risks of disasters to a lack of social respect and dignity; living in a permanent like flooding, but did not see any other alternative. shelters was often linked to social respect and credibility, that also • The concerns over deforestation were heightened by the need for protected households from the aforementioned abuse. trees for shelter construction, which many FGD participants could • FGD participants attributed the many security threats they faced not afford to buy from the market. to a lack of permanent shelters. These included the threat of theft • Many FGD participants noted the issue of insect infestations that from people addicted to drugs, as well as concerns about kidnapping. eat wood, which could destroy shelters in the summer. Some FGD These concerns were worse for tent dwellers, who often lacked basic participants used stones and clay during construction to prevent security features such as doors or locks. pests. Brahui black tent shelter type variation, Kandahar District, Kandahar Province. The Brahui are a nomadic minority group in southern Afghanistan. • FGD participants agreed that the poverty they are experiencing is Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. the root cause of their social and environmental concerns. The lack of livelihood opportunities left homeowners without enough money to buy basic goods from markets. Almost everyone interviewed reported being reliant on markets for goods. There was a belief that if there were more employment opportunities, participants could buy land, stronger materials, and have a safe home for their family. This would prevent environmental degradation and improve their community’s safety. • FGD participants noted that digging mud from the ground to build shelters created potholes. Many communities were reported to use

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

18 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

 MATERIALS USED

The following section details the prevalence and use of different Second, FGD responses detailing building practices, material types of materials in the construction of shelters in Afghanistan. It preferences, the use of materials, and seasonal variations are is divided into two sections: First, the regional prevalence of shelter explored. As most homeowners reported using whatever materials materials, where they are acquired, and the reasons for their usage were available to construct their homes, the usage of materials can reported in interviews and FGDs with homeowners is shown. give an indication of how difficult they were to obtain.

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Tarpaulin / Plastic Sheet 86% 93% 94% 44% 96% 61% 82% 94% Canvas / Cotton Cloth 47% 59% 45% 0% 18% 81% 63% 48% Felt Mat 16% 0% 1% 57% 23% 28% 20% 17% Goat Hair (Palas) 15% 0% 4% 7% 36% 33% 18% 6% Reported method of aquisition1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 74 Purchased in market 92% Safety/Security 74% 61 Inherited from family 36% It is part of our culture 61% 55 Fabric Collected in nature 20% Protects against climate 55% 51 Specially imported 12% It requires less repairs/maintenance 51% 50 Other 0% It lasts a longer time 50%

53+47F 34 53% of interviewed homeowners used fabric It is mobile 34% 3 It is less expensive 1%

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Wood Pole 65% 36% 78% 64% 90% 34% 75% 89% Wood Plank 53% 80% 27% 17% 89% 11% 63% 78% Wood Beam 48% 39% 67% 50% 32% 48% 75% 21% Bamboo Pole 22% 0% 37% 3% 1% 64% 2% 19% Tree trunk 19% 15% 0% 0% 20% 37% 0% 47% Wooden boughs 18% 7% 19% 28% 20% 34% 12% 6% Wood Lattice Frame 10% 12% 13% 0% 6% 6% 30% 0% Tent Pole 11% 9% 9% 14% 7% 10% 14% 14% Forked / T-bar pole 8% 0% 28% 11% 0% 1% 19% 3% Wood struts 3% 6% 0% 3% 9% 2% 4% 0% Material Type1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 Wood 76 Purchased in market 92% Safety/Security 76% 62 Collected in nature 40% It lasts a longer time 62% 56 Inherited from family 31% It is part of our culture 56% 54 Specially imported 4% Protects against climate 54% 45 Other 0% It requires less repairs/maintenance 45% 65+35F 24 87% of interviewed It is mobile 24%

homeowners used wood 1 It is less expensive 2 %

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

19 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

 MATERIALS USED (CONTINUED)

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Mud 72% 41% 81% 69% 89% 74% 84% 77% Packed mud (pakhsa) 55% 63% 26% 75% 53% 72% 46% 50% Kaghil 54% 63% 25% 47% 53% 32% 78% 84% Sun-Dried Bricks 49% 40% 41% 72% 60% 43% 48% 60% Stones 40% 51% 68% 39% 38% 9% 73% 17% Mud (mortar) 37% 41% 35% 0% 60% 26% 49% 44% Clay Mortar 19% 0% 26% 0% 0% 35% 51% 0% Cement 14% 28% 42% 11% 0% 1% 0% 17% Sand 14% 28% 42% 6% 0% 1% 0% 14% Concrete Blocks 12% 0% 53% 0% 0% 0% 53% 0% Gypsum mortar 6% 29% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% Fired Bricks 4% 13% 0% 6% 0% 1% 4% 1% Masonry Material Type1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 71 Collected in nature 78% Safety/Security 71% 71 Purchased in market 58% Protects against climate 71% 58 Inherited from family 20% It lasts a longer time 58% 50 Specially imported 3% It is part of our culture 50% 42 Other 0% It requires less repairs/maintenance 42% 81+19F 8 81% of interviewed Mobility 8%

homeowners used 1 masonry It is less expensive 1%

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Reed Mats (Buria) 39% 31% 2% 25% 99% 26% 14% 11% Straw 39% 0% 81% 0% 1% 3% 62% 100% Woven Reeds (Chegh) 38% 63% 40% 83% 39% 49% 24% 13% Tamarisk mats 22% 19% 9% 0% 25% 26% 43% 26% Reed Thatching 16% 6% 4% 0% 3% 41% 38% 24% Loose Reeds 12% 0% 0% 0% 15% 44% 0% 2% Bundled Reeds 8% 0% 0% 0% 17% 15% 5% 0% Material Type1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 68 Purchased in market 90% Safety/Security 68% 67 Reeds Collected in nature 49% Protects against climate 67% 62 Inherited from family 24% It is part of our culture 62% 60 Specially imported 3% It lasts a longer time 60% 51 Other 0% It requires less repairs/maintenance 51% 43+57F 17 43% of interviewed Mobility 17%

homeowners used reeds 1 It is less expensive 1%

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

20 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  MATERIALS USED (CONTINUED)

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Guy Rope 73% 63% 48% 17% 83% 98% 68% 79% Twine/Cotton String 56% 47% 72% 10% 54% 57% 54% 62% Wool tension band (roof) 30% 0% 12% 90% 83% 15% 27% 15% Wool tension band (wall) 16% 0% 4% 60% 43% 2% 19% 9% Material Type1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 82 Purchased in market 92% Safety/Security 82% 64

Rope Inherited from family 30% It lasts a longer time 64% 56 Collected in nature 21% It is part of our culture 56% 45 Specially imported 13% It requires less repairs/maintenance 45% 45 35+65F Other 0% Mobility 45% 35% of interviewed 38 homeowners used reeds Protects against climate 38%

Material Region Material Type Group National Central East North North East South South East West Nails 67% 20% 63% 100% 100% 48% 71% 92% Rain Gutter (metal) 54% 40% 77% 18% 0% 58% 50% 40% Glass (Window) 47% 50% 77% 50% 0% 32% 67% 17% Steel pins 43% 20% 55% 27% 11% 48% 47% 20% Tent stakes 30% 0% 20% 73% 67% 33% 40% 0% Steel Pole 30% 0% 20% 73% 67% 33% 40% 0% Steel I-beam 12% 20% 21% 9% 11% 4% 7% 16% Leather thongs 8% 0% 4% 0% 11% 19% 9% 0% CGI from Iron Sheets 5% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Corner Brace 3% 0% 2% 0% 44% 0% 2% 0% Material Type Examples1 Reported reasons why materials were used1 93 Purchased in market 96% Safety/Security 89% 77

Other Materials Inherited from family 21% It lasts a longer time 77% 53 Collected in nature 15% It is part of our culture 53% 48 Specially imported 10% It requires less repairs/maintenance 48% 36 37+63F Other 0% Protects against climate 36% 36% of interviewed

homeowners used 0 It is less expensive 0% 'other' materials

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

21 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  MATERIALS USED (CONTINUED)

Material Reported prevalence Reported method of acquisition Reported reason why materials Group • Tarpaulin/plastic sheeting was the • The vast majority of fabrics, primarily most commonly used material in most tarpaulin and canvas, were purchased • The main reasons for using tarpaulin regions; the only exception was the in the market. and canvas were its safety, security, South, where canvas/cotton cloth was • About a third of interviewed durability, and the protection it more commonly used. homeowners inherited their fabrics offered compared to more traditional, Fabric • Felt was most common in the North, from their family, while another fifth homemade fabrics. where it is used for huts and yurts. obtained them from nature. • Wood poles and planks were used • Nearly all interviewed homeowners throughout the country for many had obtained wood from markets. This different shelter types. They were less is likely due to the lack of adequate • Wood poles and planks were typically common in the South, where smaller forests outside of the East and South used because they were strong frame wooden boughs and bamboo poles East regions. materials, which offered protection, were more common. • Collecting in nature and inheritance lasted a long time and didn't require Wood • Larger wood beams were more were also common, likely due to much maintenance. common in the East and South East, wood's cost, and its plentifulness in where lumber is more available. certain regions. • Pakhsa and mud were common • Most masonry was collected in • Particular masonry choices were most materials for construction in all nature, either through digging of mud, commonly made for safety/security regions, likely due to the ubiquity of collection of bricks, or mining of stone. protection against climate, or durability the flat roof shelter • Most remaining masonry was reasons. This sometimes lead • Stones were very common in the purchased in the market. These homeowners to purchase different East, South East, and Central regions, were usually fired bricks or specialty items based on their preferences; fired

Masonry but not common anywhere else, materials, such as the roof bricks for bricks were stronger, while sun-dried suggesting their use in construction to curved roof shelters. bricks provided better insulation. be localized. • The use of reeds for shelter • Most interviewed homeowners • Homeowners were more divided construction has fallen due to the purchased reeds in the market, about their use of reeds than other introduction of plastic sheeting by although about half of homeowners building materials. Similar proportions humanitarian organisations. using reeds reported that they had of homeowners reported that reeds • Buria and chegh were still commonly been collected in nature. both provided protection, and that also used in the North, North East, and • Despite the degradable nature of their use was a part of the local culture Reeds Central regions. In the East, South reeds, some homeowners reported of shelter construction. East and West, straw was still that their reeds had been inherited. commonly used. • Rope was the least used construction • Nearly all rope used in construction • The type of rope selections was mainly material. was purchased in the market. based on the safety and security and • The use of different types of rope was • Inheritance of rope and collection in durability of the item. However, the highly regionalised. Wool bands were nature were also reported, but were regionalised usage of different types common in the North and North East, far less common. of rope suggests a preference based

Rope while twine was common in the East • Rope was the material type most likely on shelter type and tradition, as well. and West. Traditional guy rope was to have been imported from abroad. most commonly used everywhere else. • Most other materials used in • Most other materials were reported • Most other materials were reported construction were metal, a recent to have been purchased in markets. to have been used because of the introduction to shelters in Afghanistan. A small minority was inherited from safety and security they provided, • Steel beams for roofing was family, scavenged, or specially and their durability. These newer uncommon in the Central and East imported. materials provided ways to strengthen

Other regions, and barely used elsewhere. old designs, largely by replacing

Materials • Corner braces were most commonly wood in regions where it was scare or used in the North East. expensive.

22 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  CONTEXT OF MATERIAL USE

The following practices regarding materials, choice, and methods of use for construction and repairs were described by participants in FGDs that took place across Afghanistan:

• FGD participants in temporary shelters such as black tents, cotton tents and huts reported migrating every year as a winterization coping strategy. Lightweight materials like wood were used to make the shelters easier to transport. • Interviewed households and FGD participants reported constructing the same shelter design with the same materials over generations. These shelters were designed by their ancestors to suit the climate and Reasons for use  their livelihoods. • This study found the materials to be almost the same as those used in previous studies conducted in the 1970s (Szabo and Barfield 1991), except for an increased use in plastic over woven reeds and the increased use of metal. When asked why they chose the materials, FGD participants explained that these are the materials used to build this shelter type, and the designs had not changed. • FGD participants reported that a lack of economic opportunities and structural poverty prevented most homeowners from building safer shelters that they would prefer to live in, and the materials they chose tended to be the only ones that they could afford. Preferences  • Most decisions on materials were driven by a lack of money and resources. When they are forced to choose between spending their money on preferred materials to improve their shelters and being able to buy food in the market, they will purchase food. • IIs and FGDs found that many key shelter materials were obtained without cost, either being inherited, foraged from in nature, salvaged from garbage, were homemade, or were borrowed or gifted. Very few interviewed homeowners or FGD participants reported that humanitarian assistance played a role in providing shelter materials. • Most FGD participants who migrated from rural to urban environments noted that it was harder to make repairs or construct shelters due to the cost of items in the market, which in rural areas could be Sources  found in nature. In rural areas, most materials could be collected or foraged, such as wool for keeping water cool in the summer and insulating their shelters in winter, collecting wood, reeds and animal dung for fuel in the winter. • FGD participants made clear that the inability to afford shelter materials was one of many broader challenges that IDPs and migrants from rural areas faced in trying to meet their needs through markets where they had previously met them without cost through nature. • FGD participants from rural areas reported that they relied on cleaner materials made from animal products used by their ancestors. This was because they could forage these at no cost and they were more durable. For example, animal dung, when used for fuel is less of a pollutant than plastic or debris and wool is a better insulation for warmth than cotton or plastic sheet. These materials are available in rural areas Drawbacks and most participants living in urban areas were unable to access these.  • While NGO tents were well liked, and FGD participants explained that they had worked well, wear and tear over time caused them to wear out and become unusable. • The need for additional materials which homeowners cannot afford has pushed many homeowners to strip the environment of trees and other key resources in order to meet present shelter needs. • FGD participants identified the benefit of recycling materials for their shelter construction and fuel. Yet, children were often sent by their parents to salvage this plastic, rope and carton, which were highly unclean materials. They were likely exposed to many security and sanitation risks in this time and may be missing Benefits  education as a result. • The intergenerational re-use of materials, while driven mainly by poverty, reduced the overall level of environmental degradation. The following improvements were the most frequently raised in FGDs by participants: • Participants across all shelter types and regions explained that if their economic circumstances improved Improvements they could buy more durable materials that could protect people and their shelters from insects.  • Planting more trees was reported to decrease desertification and the hazardous weather which was reported to destroy shelters.

23 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

REGIONAL PROFILES

Above: Gumbazi Curved Roof shelter type variation, Bamyan District, Below: Timber and Stone Walls Flat Roof shelter type variation, Matun Bamyan Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. District, Khost Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

24 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: CENTRAL

 Hazard Frequency

80% of interviewed homeowners reported that natural hazards were common in their 80+20C area Of these homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 73  Blizzard 74% 53  Flooding 54%  Methods of Coping with Hazards 49  Earthquake 49% • FGD participants reported the prevention of landslides was not 46 possible and they would often need to evacuate the shelter. They  Sandstorm 46% 19 explained they carefully choose a location on hard ground before  Landslide 19% construction as digging into loose soil can causes landslides. • Most FGD participants reported that mountains protected them from A wide variety of hazards were reported to be common in this region. sandstorms or wind hazards. Concerns over blizzards, flooding, and earthquakes tended to drive • FGD participants in curved roof shelters considered its design shelter decisions. to be more resistant to natural hazards than others. Designs in  Social Concerns this region also included sand to strengthen cement in construction. % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about  Methods of Winterization their shelter's plot of land:1 37 • A samoch is a traditional type of cave built inside the mountain. Far from roads or markets 37% All participants who lived in this shelter type reported that they were 25 warm throughout the winter from ground heat. Exposed to criminals/crime 25% 17 • Small rooms made from glass or plastic were constructed in front Far from public services 17% of flat roof shelters to act as greenhouses that retained heat for 40 No social concerns 40% warmth. • In order to reduce problems from humidity, participants reported thatching their roofs.  Environmental Concerns % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns  Methods of Coping in the Summer about their shelter's plot of land:1 63 • FGD participants reported that tents and permanent shelters Exposed to cold/blizzards 63% made of mud stayed cooler during summer months. 48 • FGD participants reported removing the added insulation placed Exposed to wind 48% 43 on the shelter in the winter months for ventilation in the summer. Prone to flooding 43% 38 Samoch cave shelter type variation, Bamyan District, Bamyan Province. Earthquakes are common 38% Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. 32 Exposed to sun/drought 32% 2 Exposed to avalanche 3% 17 No environmental concerns 17% • Social concerns were lower in the Central Region than in many other regions, and tended to balance a need to access roads and markets with protection from criminality. • Reflecting the variety of environmental hazards, environmental concerns were spread across a wide range of issues, but primarily revolved around keeping the shelter protected from the cold and flooding.

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

25 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: EAST

 Hazard Frequency

90% of interviewed homeowners reported that 90+10C natural hazards were common in their area Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 69  Earthquake 69% 65  Flooding 64%  Methods of Coping with Hazards 50  Sandstorm 49% • FGD participants who lived in flat roof houses on the side of valleys 20 build walls using sand, cement and steel to protect from  Landslide 20% landslides. • FGD participants noted that trees were used to protect from Earthquakes and flooding were the most common hazards reported sandstorms and helped to protect their flat roof shelters. in the East Region. In this warmer region, sandstorms were also a • FGD participants relied heavily on community support to help mange reported concern. hazards and repair their shelters when damaged.  Social Concerns  Methods of Winterization % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about their 1 • FGD participants explained the process of 'Sandali', a method used shelter's plot of land: 2 51 for keeping warm across the country. Charcoals are added to a Far from public services 51% pot and a table and blanket are placed on top. This offers a warm 47 Far from roads or markets 47% space for the family to eat and heats the shelter. 22 • The Eastern Region typically has milder winters than other parts Exposed to criminals/crime 22% 51 of the country, making it easier to meet winter heating needs. No social concerns 51% • FGD participants reported that heating shelters often strains a household's ability to meet other basic needs, including having  Environmental Concerns enough food for the family. A participant summarized that poor people are often not thinking about how to keep warm or cool, they % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns about are only thinking about how they can get food for their children. their shelter's plot of land:1 57 Prone to flooding 56%  Methods of Coping in the Summer 53 Earthquakes are common 53% • FGD participants reported making a canopy, called a ‘Sapara’, with 47 a grass ceiling which their children sit under in the yard to keep cool Exposed to cold/blizzards 47% 46 during the day. Exposed to wind 46% • FGD participants explained that they build their shelter to face the 32 sunrise to avoid exposure to midday heat. Exposed to sun/drought 32% 10 Timber Beams and Stone Walls Flat Roof shelter type variation, Asadabad No environmental concerns 10% District, Kunar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. • Social concerns were relatively low, though most interviewed homeowners were concerned about being too far from markets and public services. • A wide variety of environmental concerns were reported, particularly more violent hazards including flooding and earthquakes. Cold and wind concerns were also common, but primarily in mountainous areas, such as Kunar Province, rather than the region as a whole. Homeowners in this region were most concerned with their homes being destroyed by natural hazards.

1. Respondents could select multiple options. 2. Similar system to 'Kotatsu' in Japan and 'Korsi' in Iran.

26 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: NORTH

 Hazard Frequency

100% of interviewed homeowners reported that natural hazards were common in their 100+0C area Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 81  Flooding 81% 68  Sandstorm 68% 33  Methods of Coping with Hazards  Blizzard 33%

30 • FGD participants living in curved roof shelters explained that the  Earthquake 29% design is more resistant to earthquakes. • Plinths were commonly used as a method to prevent flood damage. Flooding and sandstorms were the most common hazards in the North Region. The milder climate lowers the likelihood of  Methods of Coping in the Summer blizzards. • Some participants reported covering their doors and windows  Social Concerns to prevent dust entering the shelter. Others reported opening the windows and doors for ventilation if the area isn't prone to dust % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about storms. their shelter's plot of land:1

43 • FGD participants in curved roof shelters constructed mud bricks into Far from public services 43% very thick walls that both keep heat in winter and repel it in 41 summer. Far from roads or markets 41%

0 • FGD participants who lived in tents explained they needed large Exposed to criminals/crime 0% windows to stay cool in the summer. The windows had 3 layers and 43 were reportedly covered it with 'Namad'* to be comfortable in all No social concerns 43% seasons.

 Environmental Concerns  Methods of Winterization % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns • Participants agreed that people who can afford wood would burn it in about their shelter's plot of land:1 82 bukharis for warmth. Those who could not afford wood used coal, Exposed to wind 82% • For warmth, homeowners living in huts used felt as insulation, and 74 covered the outside of the shelter with sheep or goat's wool for Prone to flooding 74% 35 additional warmth. Exposed to cold/blizzards 35% 18 Tazar Curved Roof shelter type variation, Khulm District, Balkh Province. Earthquakes are common 19% Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. 9 Exposed to sun/drought 9% • As the North Region is historically less affected by conflict than many other regions, social concerns were mainly associated with being close enough to public services and markets to access them. • Environmental concerns reported by homeowners closely reflected the most common natural hazards in the North Region; exposure to wind and flooding were the greatest concerns that most homeowners had when selecting a plot for their shelter.

1. Respondents could select multiple options. * Felt mat

27 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: NORTH EAST

 Hazard Frequency

96% of interviewed homeowners reported that 96+4C natural hazards were common in their area Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 37  Earthquake 37% 85  Blizzard 85%  Methods of Coping with Hazards 100  Sandstorm 100% • FGD participants described the region as vulnerable to flooding. 21 • Many FGD participants explained they would migrate to a safe  Landslide 21% 60 place if there was heavy rain and flooding.  Flooding 60% • FGD participants living in flat roof houses reported constructing a stone plinth as part of the foundation during construction, Flooding, sandstorms, blizzards, and earthquakes were all common and also added sand to the soil when building bricks for the walls to in the North East Region, which remains one of the most hazard-prone. withstand earthquakes and flooding. • Many participants added iron and metal to the roof of their shelter  Social Concerns to increase protection against rain. % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about their shelter's plot of land:1  Methods of Winterization 57 Far from public services 57% • This region remains one of the coldest in Afghanistan, and FGD 56 participants were more likely than others to report collecting fuel in Far from roads or markets 56%

44 preparation for the winter. Exposed to criminals/crime 44% • FGD participants explained that huts and tents are unsuitable for 36 using gas. People living in these shelter types use a sandali for Exposed to conflict 36% 2

7 heat. No social concerns 7%  Methods of Coping in the Summer  Environmental Concerns • Many FGD participants reported sprinkling water on the sides of black tents, which cooled the tent as the water evaporated. % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns • Many FGD participants reported using extra cloth next to the about their shelter's plot of land:1

98 shelter to create shade to sit in to stay cool. Exposed to wind 98% • This region is reported to have very mild summers. 89 Exposed to cold/blizzards 89% Chapari (w/out centrepole) Hut shelter type variation, Chal District, Takhar

61 Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Prone to flooding 61% 54 Exposed to sun/drought 54% 38 Earthquakes are common 38% 10 Exposed to avalanche 10% 0 No environmental concerns 0% • Interviewed homeowners expressed a variety of social concerns in plot selection, highlighting the isolation of many north eastern communities from services and exposure to criminal elements. • Environmental concerns by homeowners reflected the mountainous environment in the North East Region; homeowners sought to mitigate against cold, flooding, wind, and earthquakes when selecting a plot location.

1. Respondents could select multiple options. 2. Similar system to 'Kotatsu' in Japan and 'Korsi' in Iran.

28 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: SOUTH

 Hazard Frequency

97% of interviewed homeowners reported that 97+3C natural hazards were common in their area. Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 65  Flooding 65% 63  Sandstorm 63% 

4 Methods of Coping with Hazards  Earthquake 4%

2 • FGD participants reported collecting sticks, grass, paper and  Blizzard 2% sometimes plastic and waste for fuel. They noted that this helps 1 to keep their environment clean, despite its toxicity.  Landslide 1% • Many participants living in tents built a 0.5 meter Pakhsa wall around the tent to protect the tent against the wind, sand and rain water. Flooding and sandstorms were the only two major hazards commonly • Insects were reported by FGD participants to be a major problem reported in the region. destroying shelters in the summer.  Social Concerns  Methods of Winterization % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about their shelter's plot of land:1 • FGD participants living in flat roof shelters reported making plastic 54 curtains for doors and windows for insulation. Far from roads or markets 54% • This region typically has mild winters. 46 Far from public services 46% 36  Methods of Coping in the Summer Exposed to criminals/crime 36%

12 • Many FGD participants reported using electric fans, either powered Exposed to conflict 12% by the network from Iran or by solar power. 28 No social concerns 28% Brick or pakhsa (urban) flat roof shelter type variation, Kandahar District, Kandahar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.  Environmental Concerns % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns about their shelter's plot of land:1 80 Exposed to wind 80% 52 Prone to flooding 52% 44 Exposed to cold/blizzards 44% 31 Exposed to sun/drought 31% 0 No environmental concerns 0% • Interviewed homeowners expressed a variety of social concerns in plot selection; the most important was being close to markets or services, though concerns about crime and conflict were higher than in most other regions. • The South Region is warmer than other parts of Afghanistan, and environmental concerns by homeowners reflected the desert environment; protection from wind and flooding were the greatest concerns when selecting a plot location.

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

29 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: SOUTH EAST

 Hazard Frequency

84% of interviewed homeowners reported that 84+16C natural hazards were common in their area. Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 87  Earthquake 87% 35  Blizzard 35%  Methods of Coping with Hazards 12  Flooding 12% • FGD participants living in flat roof shelter types explained they 6 usually have to pay experts to repair their shelters when they are  Sandstorm 6% 0 damaged by hazardous weather.  Landslide 0% • The South East is a mountainous region, and most FGD participants reported building their shelters on flat land to be more resistant to Earthquakes were the most common hazard reported in the earthquakes. South East region, followed by blizzards. • FGD participants explained they reinforced the walls of their flat roof shelters with soil and grass to prevent strong winds from  Social Concerns damaging walls. % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about their shelter's plot of land:1  Methods of Winterization 55 Exposed to criminals/crime 55% • During winter, homeowners who could afford permanent shelters 42 stayed in their areas, while tent dwellers typically moved to Khost Far from roads or markets 42% province in the South East where it is warmer. 39 Far from public services 39% • Homeowners living in flat roof shelters explained people needed to 11 clear snow from the roof three times a day so the roof doesn't Exposed to conflict 11% 31 collapse from the weight of the build-up. No social concerns 31%  Methods of Coping in the Summer  Environmental Concerns • Many FGD participants reported using electric fans, either powered % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns by the network from Iran or by solar power. about their shelter's plot of land:1 71 Exposed to cold/blizzards 71% Ghilzai Black Tent shelter type variation, Gardez District, Paktya Province. 68 Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Earthquakes are common 68% 34 Exposed to wind 34% 6 Prone to flooding 6% 1 Exposed to avalanche 1% 0 Exposed to sun/drought 0% 2 No environmental concerns 2% • More than any other region, exposure to criminality was the largest concern reported by interviewed homeowners in the South East. This was followed by concerns about being too far from markets or services. • The South East Region is both cold and earthquake prone; environmental concerns by homeowners reflected this, with plot location being guided by mitigating cold and damage from earthquakes as much as possible.

2. People add Charcoals to a pot and a table and blanket are then placed on top. Families tuck their legs under the table for warmth.

30 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 REGION: WEST

 Hazard Frequency

100% of interviewed homeowners reported 100+0C that natural hazards were common in their area. Of these interviewed homeowners, the most commonly reported disasters were:1 94  Sandstorm 94% 85  Flooding 85%

41  Methods of Coping with Hazards  Blizzard 41% • To prevent flooding, FGD participants living in flat roof shelters 3  Earthquake 23% reported placing carpets between the houses to absorb rain. • FGD participants agreed it is important that shelter doors faced Flooding, sandstorms, and blizzards were all common hazards away from the wind to prevent storm damage. in the West Region, and tended to vary based on the province. • Repairs could take a long time, including four months to mine the stones with pickaxes needed to stone walled shelters in Ghor  Social Concerns Province. % of interviewed homeowners reporting social concerns about  Methods of Winterization their shelter's plot of land:1

86 • FGD participants reported that they had built shelters on stone Far from public services 86% plinths to improve warmth and durability of the shelter. 51 • In Ghor Province, all shelters were designed with a hallway to trap Far from roads or markets 51% warmth in the shelter. 31 Exposed to criminals/crime 31% • FGD participants reported that they needed fuel for six months of 9 the year to stay warm during the winter. No social concerns 7% • Weather in the West can be harsh, and most FGD participants living in flat roof shelters reported needing to make extensive repairs every  Environmental Concerns three years due to damage from rain and snow. % of interviewed homeowners reporting environmental concerns • Participants reported sprinkling salt on the roof to melt snow to about their shelter's plot of land:1 prevent buildup and prevent the roof from collapsing. 89 Exposed to wind 89% 84  Methods of Coping in the Summer Prone to flooding 84% 48 • FGD participants noted a lack of shade to stay cool as there were Exposed to sun/drought 48% very few trees in the region, and relied on shelter materials, like 37 Exposed to cold/blizzards 37% kaghil, to keep the shelter cool. 0 • Participants living in tents reported rotating the door of their tent No environmental concerns 0% to face the wind and removing the layers of cloth that they had • The importance of services was emphasized by most interviewed added for winter. homeowners, as nearly all homeowners reported this was an issue Shervani Roof Flat Roof shelter type variation, Herat District, Herat in plot location. Market access and crime were also highly reported. Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. • Environmental concerns reported by homeowners closely reflected the most common natural hazards in the area; exposure to wind and flooding were the greatest concerns. Extreme cold and heat were also concerns as well.

1. Respondents could select multiple options.

31 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

COUNTRY HOUSING PROFILE

Above: Massive Stone Walls Flat Roof shelter type variation, Asadabad Below: Durrani Black Tent shelter type variation, Kandahar District, District, Kunar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Kandahar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

32 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Jat Cotton Tent, Gardez District, Paktya Province. Photo credit: REACH  COUNTRY PROFILE Initiative, November 2020.

 POPULATION Official Name: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan1

Date of 1 Independence: 1919 Capital: Kabul1 Provinces: Afghanistan has 34 provinces2 419 administrative units; 34 provincial centres and Districts: 24 temporary districts2 Afghanistan's constitution officially recognizes 14 ethnic groups: Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Baluch, Turkmen, Nuristani, Pamiri, Arab, Gujar, Brahui, Qizilbash, Aimaq, and Pashai. Ethnic There is a high level of bilingualism in Afghanistan. Diversity: Afghans reported speaking Pashto (46%) and Dari (77%), which are the official languages. Socio-economic Indicators Afghanistan’s Constitution notes that all other 4 languages are “official” in the areas in which they Exchange Rate 1 USD = 77.62 AFN are spoken by most of the population1 GDP (2019) 19.291 (+3.9%)5 Population: 37,466,4141 GNI Per Capita (2019) 530 USD5 • Rural areas 71.2% Statistical Capacity Score (2019) 50 Rural – Urban • Urban areas 23.8% 5 Ratio3 Unemployment Rate (2017) 23.9% (estimate) • Nomadic / Kuchi 5% Poverty Rate (2017) 54.5% (estimate)5 Map 2: Provinces of Afghanistan Male 63 years5 Life expectancy Female 66 year6 Total 64.5 years6 Mortality Rate (<5 years) 60%7 Primary School Completion Rate 54%7 Primary School Attendance Rate 64%7 Youth Literacy Rate (15-24) 65%7 Fertility Rate, Total 4.5 per woman5 5 CO2 emissions per capita 0.245 metric tons Agriculture Agriculture: 44%4 Labour force 4 (by occupation) Industry Industry: 18% Services Services: 38%4

Table 5: Estimated Population of Afghanistan 20162 Populations in Need8 Male  51% 49%  Female IDPs (Total) 2,993,000 1 Conflict 2% 60+ 1% New (2019) 461,000 2 6 6% 40-59 6% IDPs (Total) 1,198,000 7 9 Disaster 9% 25-39 9% New (2019) 117,000 9 10 Returnees 714,000 9% 15-24 10% 9 23 Refugees 72,000 25% 0-14 23% 25

1. CIA, World Factbook: Afghanistan, 2020. 5. World Bank Data: Country Profile Afghanistan 2. (OCHA) Afghanistan, CSO Population Estimates for 2016 to 2017 6. The World Bank: Life expectancy at birth, total (years) - Afghanistan 3. MUDL, Afghanistan Land Administration System Project, February 2019. 7. UNICEF: Country Profile Afghanistan 4. Da Afghanistan Bank: Exchange Rates (28 February 2021). 8. IDMC, Afghanista: Country Information, 2020.

33 AFGHANISTANEMERGENCY SHELTER, LOCAL ARCHITECTURE NON-FOOD ITEMS REVIEW & WINTERIZATION ASSESSMENT NovemberDecember 20202019

14  GEOGRAPHY Graph 1: Average Monthly Temperature in Afghanistan, 2016

Afghanistan's climate fluctuates between extremes, featuring both 27 very cold winters and hot summers, which is typical of a semi- 25 25 22 arid steppe climate. Yet there are many regional variations. The 20 mountainous areas in the North West have a sub-Arctic climate with dry, cold winters, while the mountainous areas in the East 14 14° near Pakistan are very hot and have seasonal monsoons.10 The 9° country's terrain is very rugged, and the elevation ranges from 6° 5° 150 to 8,000m, averaging 1,100m above sea level. There are five 4° 4° major river basins. Average annual temperatures have increased by 0.6°C between 1960 and 2008. About half of the annual Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec precipitation occurs in winter (January to March), much of which falls as snow in the central mountainous areas.11  Table 5: Climate Patterns in Afghanistan PROTECTED AREAS Temperature Afghanistan has a continental climate, with The Government of Afghanistan acknowledges that the country temperatures ranging on average from 30°C in faces many challenges. In their ‘National Protected Area System summer to -20°C in winter 12 Plan’ (2009) the National Environmental Protection Agency recognises that land protection may not initially seem like a crucial Water Although Afghanistan has a semi-arid environment, area of attention. However, it is also noted that land preservation it is rich in water resources, mainly because of the high mountain ranges such as Hindu Kush and and ensuring the distribution of equitable resources is important Koh-i-Baba, which are covered with snow13 in creating social and economic development. The World Database on Protected Areas lists 15 areas of Afghanistan that are Elevation Most of Afghanistan lies between 2,000 and 10,000 feet (600 and 3,000 metres) in elevation13 designated or are in the process of being designated as protected area status.15 Table 6: Protected Areas in Afghanistan15

No. Name Designation Area Status Status Year Designation 1 Nuristan  5,733  2020 Waterfowl* Sanctuary  2 Ab-i-Estada  282  N/A Protected Landscape  3 Hamun-i-Puzak  442  N/A Wildlife Reserve 

  National Park and  4 Dasht-i-Nawar 375 2020 Wildlife Reserve 5 Wakhan National Park  10,910  2016 No Designation  6 Hamun-i-Hilman (Sistan Lakes)  837  N/A 7 Band-i-Amir National Park  606  2009 Status 8 Ragistan Desert  22,040  N/A Designated  9 Darqad (Takhar)  627  2020 Not Designated  10 Kol-i-Hashmat Khan  2  2017 Proposed  11 Imam Sahib (Kunduz)  581  2020 12 Northwest Afghanistan  8,379  N/A 13 Hamun-i-Saberi  113  N/A 14 Koh-e Baba (Shah Foladi)  342  2019 *Waterfowl are birds that are strong swimmers with waterproof feathers 15 Bamyan Plateau  0  2019 and webbed feet e.g.ducks

9. OCHA, 2021, Humanitarian Needs Overview, November 2020.10. FAO. 2012. 11. Climate Knowledge Portal: World Bank. Country: Afghanistan AQUASTAT Country Profile – Afghanistan. Food and Agriculture Organization of 12. UNDP Climate Change Adaptation: Afghanistan the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy 13. FAO. 2012. AQUASTAT Country Profile – Afghanistan

34 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Interior roof of Gumbazi curved Roof shelter type variation, Bamyan  LIVELIHOODS District, Bamyan Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Afghanistan features a highly diverse climate, necessitating a diversity of livelihoods depending on the area of the country. Livelihoods are defined as a the sum or ways in which households are able to meet their needs to live.16 While about 15% of the country labour force works in industry, and there is a large and growing portion of the labour force working in services, a plurality of Afghans are still mainly employed in agriculture, and achieve their main livelihoods in this way. These livelihoods are extremely diverse depending on the surrounding environment. Food security and livelihoods actors have identified 29 separate zones, in which agricultural livelihoods vary, which is shown in Map 3 below. Each zone represents a different set of climatic conditions, within which the population pursues different planting and harvesting patterns, crop types, market access, and environmental shocks. An overall description of each livelihood zone is found in the map legend.

Map 3: Afghanistan’s Livelihood Zones16

14. Climate Knowledge Portal: World Bank. Country: Afghanistan Database of Protected Areas 15. UNEP-WCMC (2021). Protected Area Profile for Afghanistan from the World 16. FEWSNET, Livelihood Zones of Afghanistan: Updating and partners

35 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Current Challenges  HOUSING SECTOR Due to years of conflict, both access and security of land remain a  cause of tension within Afghan communities. Disputes surrounding Context Overview land are often either a cause of, or a result of, decades of armed conflict. Many IDPs and returnees don't have access to shelter Rapid urbanisation is a challenge faced in cities across or land due to the destruction of property or land grabbing. Land Afghanistan. A recent report by UN-HABITAT noted that 50% of grabbing has become a common practice in Afghanistan, in which residents are projected to be living in cities by 2060.17 At present, wealthy land owners or developers are able to take land from poor there is insufficient safe long-term housing for Afghans including households with little to no compensation, and take water sources, IDPs, returnees, and host communities, and many live in informal agriculture, or pasture land.17 urban settlements; indeed, as much as 70% of inhabitants in cities could be classified as living with informal housing arrangements, Definition of Land Grabbing: Land grabbing is broadly defined as and as many as 86% could be classified as living in 'slum' housing. the, "control of land by any means for purposes of extraction, resource Notwithstanding, home ownership is significantly high, as UN- control or commodification at the expense of peasant farmers, as well as agroecology, land stewardship, food sovereignty and human HABITAT reported that home ownership in Afghanistan is as high 19 17 rights." The Centre for Economic and Social Rights has noted that as 97% and three quarters (73%) in urban areas. land grabbing threatens people’s economic, social and cultural rights. Afghanistan has a variety of local shelter types that are constructed They explain that land access is integral to a person’s right to food, housing, self-determination and participation in cultural life.20 by households using local knowledge. These shelter types are most common in rural areas, and do not require formal engineering training or special, imported materials in order to build them. There  Land Management are 7 distinct shelter types in Afghanistan, according to Szabo There are over thirty laws, documents, policies, and bodies and Barfield 1991, which each have different distinct variations. A governing land rights in Afghanistan, of which the central law is summary of each shelter type category is in table 7 below: based on the Constitution of Afghanistan.17 The main laws are Table 7: Primary Shelter Types Found in Afghanistan18 shown in Table 8, below: Table 8: Policies and Laws Governing Land Management19 Shelter Type Description Name Year Enacted Collapsible tents made of woven goat hair panels, sometimes supported by woven reed mat walls. Land Tax Law 1976 Black tent: They are commonly used among nomadic peoples Civil Code 1977 (kuchi). The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human 1981 Canvas tents are pre-manufactured or made by Rights Cotton Tent: stitching pieces of cloth together and supported Survey and Cadastre Law 1988 with poles. Land Management Law 2000 Mobile shelters made of cloth or animal hide Municipal Law 2000 Yurt: stretched over a wooden frame of interlocking wood pieces. Roofs are either domical or conical shaped. Law on Pastures and Mara’a 2000

Hut: Mobile shelters made of woven reed or tamarisk Presidential Decree 99 2002 mats held by poles. Presidential Decree 83 2003 Permanent shelters made of packed mud or bricks. Curved Roof Income Tax Law 2007 Permanent: The roof of the shelter is made of brick and is shaped like a dome or arch. The National Land Policy 2007 Permanent shelter with mud, brick, or stone walls, Law on Managing Land Affairs 2008 Flat Roof and wood-supported flat roofs. These shelters are Permanent: constructed with stone, timber, bricks, pakhsa, or a Land Expropriation Law 2009 combination thereof. Forest Law 2012 Permanent shelter made from a natural void in the Mineral Law 2015 Cave: side of a hill, mountain, or cliff-face. Land Governance Assessment Framework 2017 participation, July 2017. 18. Albert Szabo and Thomas Jefferson Barfield, Afghanistan: An atlas of 17. UN-Habitat, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan: indigenous domestic architecture, 1991. Housing Profile, 2017. 19. Baker-Smith, Katelyn, What is Land Grabbing? A critical review of existing definitions. Eco Ruralis, 2016.

36 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  Land Management Land Acquisition Land Ownership and Tenancy in Afghanistan There are three institutions involved in land management in A key challenge for Afghanistan is to create an equitable land Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Independent Land Authority (ARAZI) management system amidst ongoing conflict and increasing land manages state land and provides support to municipalities. degradation caused by climate change. The Afghan Government Provincial municipalities allocate urban municipal land for housing has divided land management into nation-wide and municipal level. construction and maintain residential zoning areas. In addition, the They established a third institution which aims to support returnees Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation (MoRR) provides land for and IDPs in accessing land for livelihoods and housing. displaced households. Table 10: Overview of Land Ownership21 21 Table 9: Key Institutions Governing Land Management Type of Land Description Land Management Role Ownership Institutions Public Land allocated for public use Afghanistan Responsible for managing state-owned land Independent Land and provides support services to Government Private Collectively or individually held land with or Authority (ARAZI) bodies investors and individuals without recognised state documentation Ministry of State Land either registered as state land, or Refugees and Responsible for the land distribution unregistered public land Repatriation programme for eligible returnees and IDPs Waqf Land donated for charitable purposes (MoRR) Common Community land for grazing Municipalities Responsible for land allocation for housing construction and maintenance Land Tenure Types

The process of registering land and obtaining title deeds in Afghanistan has three primary types of land ownership; private, Afghanistan is expensive. Due to the cost of registering land, only public and state. These forms of land ownership have their own 10% of land transactions are estimated to actually go through the respective laws for transferring land, which can often complicate official registration procedures. Moreover, Afghanistan ranks 184 the provision of services if the occupants are not allowed to modify out of 189 in ease of registering property.21 As a result, UN-HABITAT the land in any way. Furthermore there are three forms of law which estimated that only 10% of rural and 30% of urban land has a legal govern land which all define land differently; Statutory law, Shar’ia deed.21 To ease land access, the Government has developed two law and customary law and practice. The table below is reproduced schemes: 1) The 'State Land Distribution Scheme,' which allocates from the UN-HABITAT and Ministry of Urban Development and land to low-income public servants, IDPs and returnees, and 2) the Housing study and explains the different forms of land tenure under 21 'Land Allocation Scheme' (2005) which supports the allocation of which land can be managed in Afghanistan. land to IDPs and returnees in particular.

Table 11: Types of Land Tenure21 Type of Tenure Description Either based on formal or customary law. Under the 2008 Law on Managing Land Affairs, all land not proved to be Ownership private is deemed to be state land. Leasehold The 2008 Law on Managing Land Affairs permits leasing between private parties, subject to written leases. The Law on Managing Land Affairs states that pasture land is public property that neither the state nor any individual Agreed Rights of can possess (unless declared otherwise by Shari’a). This land must be unoccupied for the public to use. Individuals Access can get access through customary use and deeds. In urban areas, landholders in formal settlements generally have formal rights to the land. Occupants of informal Occupancy Rights settlements usually have some type of informal rights based on principles of customary law. The 2007 Land Policy permits the regularization of rights to informal settlement holdings, but implementing legislation has yet to be enacted. Formal and customary law recognize two types of land mortgage: Mortgage 1) Debt secured by the land. 2) Lender takes possession of the land until the borrower repays the debt

20. The Centre for Economic and Social Rights, Land Grabbing and Its Implications for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

37 AFGHANISTANEMERGENCY SHELTER, LOCAL ARCHITECTURE NON-FOOD ITEMS REVIEW & WINTERIZATION ASSESSMENT NovemberDecember 20202019 Steel frame and metal sheet flat roof shelter type variation, Jalalabad  CONSTRUCTION SECTOR District, Nangarhar Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

Size and Scope The construction sector in Afghanistan employs approximately 106,300 people. The three Ministries with largest construction budgets are the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior Affairs. These three Ministries employed approximately 800 people in construction in 2017. The Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MUDH) has three construction Tasadees [Government owned companies]: 1) Housing, 2) Banaee, and 3) Afghani. These tasadees employ approximately 600 people, of which there are 75 construction engineers. The market value of the industry was approximately which, the state built 27,000 and private sector built 55,000 units. $15.2 million USD in 2017, and constructed 1.5 million housing The total amount of loans disbursed since 2010 has significantly units between 2002 and 2017.22 dropped by 85% from 7,412 million AFN to 1,090 million AFN in 2017.24 Current Projects  There was a total of 1,039 official construction projects in 2017, Affordable Housing and approximately 10,000 projects have been completed in the UN-HABITAT/MUDH has identified that by the end of 2014, the 10 years previously. Many projects are similar to the 'Housing housing deficit was approximately 1.5 million units. The limited Construction Enterprise' project, where the government partnered supply of housing has pushed the cost of buying a home out of with private company, to secure prefabricated housing and build reach for many Afghans. The World Bank defines affordable 1,200 apartments, 250 schools and 250 Government offices. housing as costing 30% or less of total household gross income. Recently the Government of Afghanistan, through MUDH, has The same report explains that an Afghan on an average salary obtained the commitment of China, the United Arab Emirates, and would spend 85% of their income to rent a typical urban housing Qatar to support the construction of 22,000 housing units in the unit. Conflict, frequent natural hazards, and supply bottlenecks related to land acquisition, building materials and financing have  Land Regulation led to an almost total absence of affordable housing within the country.25 The table below displays the inputs and constraints in country.29 Afghanistan’s affordable housing sector. Afghanistan has seven land regulation authorities:23 Table 12: Inputs and Constraints in Afghanistan’s Affordable 1. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries issues the company Housing Sector 25 license for construction Inputs Constraints 2. The Municipality provides construction permits Land grabbing; Limited access to appropriate housing for middle-income households; 3. The Makhzan provides the land deed Land Inefficient use of land; Tenure insecurity in 4. The Ministry of Urban Development and Housing prepares the informal settlements township Master plan Inadequate sanitation, water and electricity Infrastructure services 5. The Ministry of Finance manages all tax concerning construction Building Materials Most materials imported; Limited skilled and Construction labour; Low construction quality enforcement 6. The National Procurement Authority evaluates the contracts Processes 7. The Ministry of Economy awards the relevant public sector Limited lending suppliers; primarily upfront contracts Financing cash payments for construction and repairs There is an estimated 35,000 housing shortage per annum. Since 2001, a total of 83,000 formal apartment units have been built, of

21. UN-HABITAT, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan: 23. UN-Habitat, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan: Housing Profile, 2017. Housing Profile, 2017. 22. Office of the Senior Economic Advisor, Construction Sector: Sector Overview, 24. Office of the Senior Economic Advisor, Construction Sector: Sector Overview, 2017. 2017.

38 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Sun-dried brick dome and vault (Gumbazi), Zaranj District, Nimroz  Mortgages Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Key challenges facing those seeking a mortgage include:26 • Non-supportive banking laws. • Lack of capital. • Difficulty in repossession of property in case of default. • Difficultiesin tracking individuals due to the lack of identification and postal addresses. Challenges facing the sector include:26 • A lack of corporatization which prohibits companies from building capital • The low-level salaries in comparison to industry discouraging a skilled workforce. • The only state-owned mortgage and reconstruction bank has folded. Citizens are now reliant on the private secure for reasonable mortgage rates. NATIONAL DISASTER RISK  REDUCTION STRATEGY  UNITS OF MEASUREMENT The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (2015– 2030) is the most influential strategy for DRR used in Afghanistan While the metric system is primarily used across urban Afghanistan, currently. While signing this strategy, Afghanistan developed traditional units continue to be used for area and weight in rural the Strategic Framework 2018–2028 and the Afghanistan DRR areas. The units of measurement for area are biswaasa, biswa, and National Strategy, which are the two primary policies governing jireeb. Table 13 explains the conversions of these measurements DRR currently in place. Unfortunately, a lack of human and to the metric and imperial systems below: economic capital has resulted in the inability to fully implement these strategies.28 A 2019 Open Development Initiative report noted Table 13: Traditional Units of Measurement in Afghanistan27 that Government representatives acknowledged these limitations. Traditional Units Metric System Imperial This report also identified that the Government of Afghanistan 1 Biswaasa 5 sq meters 6 square yards documented the challenges they experienced when implementing DRR in the Natural Disaster Mitigation Policy of Afghanistan, and 20 Biswaasa 100 sq meters 119 yards that conflict-related reasons had limited the Government’s ability 1 Biswa 2,000 sq meters 2,329 yards or 1.3 miles to coordinate DRR effectively. Large portions of Afghanistan are beyond state control due to conflict-related reasons, and there 1 Jireeb 40,000 sq meters 9.9 acre are few actors that have the capacity to implement DRR activities effectively. Those that have the capacity, including international NGOs, have been hesitant to officially partner with the Government as it may impact their neutrality.28

Table 14: Households in Afghanistan by Tenancy Status and Residence Type26 Residence % Inheritance % Purchased % Constructed % Tenant % Charity % Other Urban 29% 27% 15% 21% 2% 6% Rural 60% 7% 26% 1% 2% 4% Kuchi 47 16% 31% 24% 0% 8% 21% Total 51% 13% 23% 6% 3% 5%

25. UN-Habitat, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan: 27. Traditional Measurement Units, Qazi, Abdullah. 2018 Housing Profile, 2017. 26. UN-Habitat, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan: 28. ODI, Mena, R. Hilhorst, D and Peters, K., Disaster risk reduction and Housing Profile, 2017. protracted violent conflict: The case of Afghanistan, 2019.

39 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  UNDP and the Afghanistan National Government's Programme HAZARD FREQUENCY of Action for Climate Change (NAPA) programme have focused Afghanistan is prone to earthquakes, flooding, drought, landslides, on livelihood development and climate risk and response and avalanches. Throughout 2020, an estimated 104,470 people measures. These programmes have aimed to mitigate the effects were affected by natural hazards throughout Afghanistan, of climate change for structurally vulnerable populations in target and populations in all 34 provinces were reported to have communities. experienced some form of natural hazard during the period.29 The Time line of number of Afghans affected by natural hazard incidents 29 protracted conflict, vulnerability to climate change, and chronic underinvestment in DRR measures across Afghanistan has left 0K 50K 100K 150K 200K its citizens without much resilience to regular shocks from natural hazards.30 On average, natural hazards affect 200,000 people a Q1 year.31 Q2

2013 Q3 A study by the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Q4 Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Afghanistan’s National Environmental Protection Agency in 2016 found that Afghans Q1 perceive climate change as an environmental problem that Q2 needs to be solved by technical rather than social solutions; most 2014 Q3 people did not believe their behaviour effected climate change, Q4 and therefore were not concerned about its long-term social or Q1 31 economic implications or risks posed by climate change. Q2

Afghanistan increasingly suffers from both droughts and floods 2015 Q3 which negatively impact livelihoods. Desertification is a growing Q4 concern for rural households, the national economy, and food Q1 security. This is particularly concerning as, at present, 44% of Q2 national employment is in the agricultural sector.31 2016 Q3 Land disputes have been a leading cause of conflict in Afghanistan. Q4 The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) anticipates Q1 that as arable land decreases and urbanisation increases there will Q2 be more disputes over the remaining arable land left for farming.49 2017 Q3 Desertification and droughts are projected to intensify as scientists Q4 expect that temperatures will increase by 4°C in the next 45 years. Areas of specific concern include the melting of the Pamir/Hindu Q1 Kush glaciers in the country’s north-east.32 Programmes run by Q2

Kapa Hut shelter type, Faizabad District, Badakhshan Province. Photo 2018 Q3 credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Q4 Q1 Q2

2019 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

2020 Q3 Q4

Avalanche Earthquake Flood / Flash Flood Heavy Snowfall Landslide / Mudflow

31. WFP, UNEP & NEPA: 2016, Climate Change in Afghanistan: What Does It Mean For Rural Livelihoods And Food Security? 29. OCHA: Afghanistan: Overview of Natural Disasters, 2021 32. UNDP, Climate Change Adaptation Afghanistan, 2020. 52. Global Shelter 30. WHO, Afghanistan: Situation Report, July 2019 Cluster: Afghanistan

40 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Massive Stone Walls Flat Roof shelter type, Feroz Koh District, Ghor  ES/NFI CLUSTER Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. In 2020, The ES/NFI Cluster worked to support 1.4 million vulnerable people affected by conflict and natural hazards with shelter, NFI and winterization assistance. The ES/NFI Cluster defines shelter organisations’ roles and responsibilities countrywide in Afghanistan to ensure a stronger predictability and accountability in humanitarian response, and a more effective provision of assistance. The cluster prioritizes the provision of timely, targeted and appropriate assistance by coordinating distributions of emergency shelter kits and materials to populations in need. The ES/NFI Cluster also supports in the repair or replacement of both temporary and permanent shelters where needed.33 Following this, the most recent published ES/NFI Cluster strategy has noted the support for resilience and DRR strategies for local  GENDER ISSUES housing through three interrelated key objectives:33 1. Ensuring timely, adequate access to shelter and non-food Women in Afghanistan generally have less access to land, property items for vulnerable internally displaced, and returnees and housing rights. One study found that less than 2% of women own land, most of which secured this through inheritance.34 While 2. Ensuring that the living conditions of vulnerable people are legally women can own land, women’s property rights are not improved. customarily respected. Women in Afghanistan face considerable 3. Ensuring adequate response capacity through preparedness social and cultural barriers which results in few having the economic measures and prepositioning of emergency shelters and NFIs. resources needed to buy a property. In order to attain these goals, the following key activities were Land is rarely inherited by women, as widows often transfer this defined as priorities for the ES/NFI Cluster in 2018:33 to their sons and daughters transfer land to their brothers once • The Cluster will work to support aid actors by prioritizing married.35 Female-headed households often live in conditions vulnerable populations affected by emergencies, in both which lack the basic requirements of dignity, privacy, safety and accessible and hard to reach areas, for emergency shelter and security. NFI assistance to ensure their safety and mitigate protection The Whole of Afghanistan Assessment 2020 also reported that at and health risks. least 59% of female-headed displaced households; 58% of displaced • The Cluster will supports the improvement of existing shelter households headed by the elderly and 67% of households headed conditions for prolonged vulnerable populations that are living by a person with a disability were found to be in either severe or in poor shelters. extreme need of shelter and NFI assistance, emphasising the broader finding that structurally vulnerable populations, including • The Cluster will work to construct transitional shelters for IDPs women and girls, are highly affected by substandard housing.36 and returnees as a short term solution to support their well- Interior of Concrete Block and Mud Flat Roof shelter type, Gardez District, being while they wait for permanent housing. Paktya Province. Typical roofing includes wood beams with chegh covering, covered by mud. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. • The Cluster will prioritize the most vulnerable families for winterization support above those with less need.

34.USAID (2010) USAID Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance: Afghanistan. Washington, DC: United Stated Agency for International Development 33. ES/NFI Cluster, AFG ES/NFI Cluster Strategy 2018 EN, June 2018. 35. UN-Habitat, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan:

41 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

SHELTER TYPE PROFILES

Above: Concrete Block Flat Roof shelter type variation, Behsud District, Below: Brick and Pakhsa Flat Roof shelter type variation, Bamyan District, Jalalabad Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. Bamyan Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

42 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  SUMMARY TABLE

The following profiles detail the designs and BoQs of the 26 shelter and household resources. In the tables below, costs are averaged type variations collected with the shelter design tool. Each profile by shelter type variation, and by region, to provide an indication documents an example of the shelter type variation and its BoQ; of how material, labour, and transport costs vary by shelter type individual shelter costs and materials are expected to vary by region variation and region. Table 1: Summary of Shelter Types and Associated Attributes

Labour Shelter Costs (AFN) Regions Present M/D

Shelter Type Shelter Family Materials Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Transport Transport Unskilled Skilled Shelter Age (Years) (Days) Construction Time # Of People that Can Sleep in Shelter Central East North North East South South East West Vaulted - Durrani 39,206 1,500 1,500 500 42,706 6 3 4 7 4.8 Vaulted - Baluch 32,705 1,500 4,500 2,000 40,705 15 3 7 12 6.1 Peaked - Ghilzai 40,544 3,500 5,100 2,800 51,944 17 7 6 9 8.9

Black Tents Peaked - Brahui 81,374 4,000 4,200 2,250 91,824 14 6 5 13 7.7 Jugi 23,127 2,167 1,800 1,800 28,893 6 3 7 4 6.6 Jat 13,042 1,925 3,750 1,788 20,504 10 3 4 5 6.2 Tents Cotton Herati tent 36,521 1,000 14,350 2,800 54,671 41 2 2 11 4.7 Circular - Lacheq 29,996 9,600 2,400 3,000 44,996 12 12 27 26 4.3 Circular – Chapari 9,581 2,400 1,600 1,200 14,781 4 4 3 12 5.7 without centerpole Rectangular – Kapa-

Huts 16,800 1,800 1,200 400 20,200 3 3 5 10 5.2 i-arab Ovate-Oblong - Kodai 34,640 6,000 5,400 2,500 48,540 18 6 6 15 7.3 Ovate-Oblong - Kapa 17,833 4,250 2,850 575 25,508 10 9 5 10 5.1

Samoch 25,914 72,000 31,500 4,000 133,414 90 90 5 56 7.1 Cave

Gumbazi 53,268 25,000 27,500 2,525 108,293 80 33 19 24 5.5 Tazar 70,197 14,800 22,500 2,000 109,497 75 26 26 24 5.2 Fired brick vaults and 52,645 16,800 13,500 3,000 85,945 45 28 10 21 6.2 Curved roof

Construction timber beams Brick or Pakhsa walls 99,881 23,950 21,407 6,057 151,295 66 34 8 26 4.1 (rural) Brick or Pakhsa walls 89,571 15,000 13,650 5,000 123,221 39 15 8 20 6.2 (bamyan variant) Brick or Pakhsa walls 119,969 28,686 23,454 8,986 181,094 63 31 12 28 6.2 (urban) Concrete block and 145,347 36,000 37,500 4,600 223,447 125 60 16 50 8.7 mud Concrete blocks and 64,008 11,900 9,000 9,000 93,908 30 17 9 12 5.8 cement Steel frame 34,469 11,900 9,000 3,000 58,369 30 17 3 7 3.6

Flat roof Construction Massive stone walls 131,222 38,480 34,680 7,780 212,162 71 31 18 48 7.3 Timber and stone 171,128 49,400 35,000 2,500 258,028 110 77 9 50 6.6 walls Shervani roof 54,044 7,000 33,600 6,750 101,394 96 141 4 15 4.9 Brick and wood frame 221,871 29,400 26,750 5,925 283,946 84 40 36 39 8.7 walls (Kabuli house)

43 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  REGIONAL COSTS

Central Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents 21,300 400 6 2,200 750 3 2,250 1,750 27,500 Huts Cave 25,914 350 90 31,500 800 90 72,000 4,000 133,414 Curved roof Construction 79,286 350 40 14,000 1,000 20 20,000 2,000 115,286 Flat roof Construction 102,615 380 51 19,280 830 24 20,400 6,700 148,995

East Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents 12,130 300 6 1,800 700 3 2,100 1,800 17,830 Huts Cave Curved roof Construction Flat roof Construction 141,693 300 46 14,457 700 28 19,500 8,500 184,150

North Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents 10,715 500 5 2,500 800 2 1,600 3,000 17,815 Huts 29,996 200 12 2,400 800 12 9,600 3,000 44,996 Cave Curved roof Construction 50,708 350 70 25,000 900 22 19,800 2,850 98,358 Flat roof Construction 252,823 300 39 11,700 800 20 15,600 15,000 295,123

North East Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents Huts 13,217 367 5 1,833 567 5 2,567 650 18,267 Cave Curved roof Construction Flat roof Construction 118,071 388 26 10,125 724 27 19,988 1,875 150,058

44 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020  REGIONAL COSTS

North East Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents Huts 13,217 367 5 1,833 567 5 2,567 650 18,267 Cave Curved roof Construction Flat roof Construction 118,071 388 26 10,125 724 27 19,988 1,875 150,058

South Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents 47,285 288 14 4,200 550 6 3,500 1,575 56,560 Cotton Tents Huts 22,396 300 10 3,000 500 10 5,000 800 31,196 Cave Curved roof Construction 57,655 300 85 25,500 567 43 25,933 2,167 111,255 Flat roof Construction 51,149 300 64 19,275 500 36 17,750 4,000 92,174

South East Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents 63,304 300 13 3,900 500 4 2,000 3,150 72,354 Cotton Tents 25,685 300 9 2,700 500 3 1,500 1,600 31,485 Huts 34,640 300 18 5,400 1,000 6 6,000 2,500 48,540 Cave Curved roof Construction Flat roof Construction 138,231 300 161 48,250 719 73 51,233 7,133 244,848

West Region

Unskilled Labour Skilled Labour Total Material Shelter Family Transport Cost Total Cost Cost Daily Daily M/D Total Cost M/D Total Cost Rate Rate Black Tents Cotton Tents 20,627 350 30 10,325 500 4 2,000 1,925 34,877 Huts Cave Curved roof Construction 52,443 350 80 28,000 500 18 9,000 2,900 92,343 Flat roof Construction 99,421 350 127 44,406 688 77 41,625 4,988 190,440

45 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Black Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Baluch Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 9 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 29 Construction time (days) 12 Shelter age (years) 7  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 12 8 M2 96 20 1,920

2 Fabric Tarpaulin 10 6 M 40 125 5,000 Tent Pole 2.5 0.1 Pcs 1 150 150 Bamboo Pole 3.5 0.07 Pcs 28 300 8,400 Bamboo Pole 4 0.07 Pcs 4 350 1,400 Wood Wood Plank 6 0.2 0.2 Pcs 6 100 600 Wood Plank 2.5 0.2 0.2 Pcs 28 100 2,800 Goraghil M3 5 250 1,250 Stone M3 30 150 4,500

Masonry Soil M3 3 250 750 Guy Rope 80 0.01 M 80 12 960

Rope Wool tension band 22 0.02 M 25 100 2,500

Straw Kg 75 9 675 Reeds

Steel Pin 0.4 0.016 Pcs 18 100 1,800 Other Materials Materials Sub Total 32,705 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 15 300 4,500 Skilled Labour M/D2 3 500 1,500 Labour Sub Total 6,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,000 Total Cost 40,705

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

46 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

Kandahar Kandahar wood plank (620*20*4) plank wood Province District 20cm 80.0cm 150cm 20cm Wood plank different size used 123cm 70cm 10.0000 Location 154cm 20cm cotton tarpaulin plastic sheet wood plank size(20*20)cm different size wood plank(4*20)cm

105cm place for house tools 58cm 620cm 580cm 510cm 20cm 110cm Project Name Local Architecture Roof plan carpeat Normal soil desert gravel Stone masonry shelve for tools 163cm 163cm 20cm Bamboo pole Ø 7cm 20cm 20cm Section (A-A) 510cm 20cm Black T ent Vaulted - B al u ch NGL

Shelter Type Shelter Variation stone masonry(local stone) masonry(local stone steel pin Ø16mm,40cm Guy ropeØ 10mm 70cm 123cm 70cm

Door way 340.cm

A A 139cm

137cm

620cm 620cm R Bath 10cm Floor plan 100cm 110cm 100 shelf for house tools small shelfe for tools vertical wood pole Ø10cm 10cm Front elevation 180cm 50.0000 180cm 470cm NGL 510cm 80cm 150cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

47 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Black Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Brahui Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 9 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 20 Construction time (days) 13 Shelter age (years) 5  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 12 9 M2 108 20 2,160 American Tarpaulin 14 10 M2 140 360 50,400 Fabric Canvas 12 9 M2 108 100 10,800 Wood Pole 1 0.06 Pcs 3 50 150

Wood Wood Pole 1.8 0.06 Pcs 4 70 280 Goraghil 3.6 0.5 0.5 M3 0.9 300 270

Pakhsa 23.4 0.2 0.8 M3 4 300 1,200 Masonry Guy Rope 50 0.012 M 50 10 500

Rope Wool tension band 80 0.02 M 50 16 800

Straw Kg 50 10 500 Reeds Steel Pin 0.4 0.025 Pcs 15 150 2,250 Metal Pipe 1.8 0.05 Pcs 8 252 2,016 Metal Pipe 7.05 0.05 Pcs 3 980 2,940 Metal Pipe 1.85 0.05 Pcs 11 259 2,849

Other Materials Metal Pipe 2.65 0.05 Pcs 3 371 1,113 Materials Sub Total 78,228 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 20 300 6,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 10 700 7,000 Labour Sub Total 91,228 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,000 Total Cost 93,228

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

48 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Kandahar Kandahar Province District 650cm 100cm steel pin(40,Ø1.2)cm 1 1 Mud(pakhsa wall) h=80cm ,width=20cm 1 2 Location wood pole 1 1 1 metal pipe 1 2 1 Steel Pipe (750*Ø5)cm

Bamboo Pole (200*Ø6)cm) Cotton Rope (800*Ø2)cm plastic (1,200*900)cm canvas sheet (1,200*900)cm Amirican tarpaulin (1,200*900)cm

5cm 1 rope roof 2 2 1 1 1 1 place for tools 1

2 2 400cm rope roof 80cm 2 2 1 2 Roof Plan 2 Project Name Local Architecture D(40*80)cm 2 1 1 1 50cm 2 1

Section (A-A)

1 1 1 1 tarpaulin

750cm guy rope Ø 1.2cm Ø rope guy NGL 265cm Peaked - Brahuil Black T ent Shelter Type Shelter Variation A 100cm Steel pin 1 1 1 1 20cm 20.0000 20.4548 Bath R 1 60cm Guy rofe 1 2 1 80cm place for tools 1 400cm 400cm 100cm 40cm 2 2 40cm 1 2 50cm 2 Floor Plan Front elevation 2 2 20.0115 2 1 1 1 1 1 20cm 15cm 233cm 233cm 233cm A tent sheet 100cm NGL 750cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

49 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Black Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Durrani Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 7 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 17 Construction time (days) 7 Shelter age (years) 4  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 12 10 M2 120 120 14,400

2 Fabric Palas 12 10 M 120 150 18,000 Bamboo Pole 2.2 0.1 Pcs 1 80 80 Bamboo Pole 2 0.08 Pcs 4 70 280 Wood Bamboo Pole 1.8 0.08 Pcs 10 65 650 Kaghil 27 0.3 M2 16.2 35 567 Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.3 0.15 0.1 Pcs 222 2 444

Masonry Soil M3 0.35 300 105 Guy Rope 40 0.008 M 60 12 720

Rope Wool tension band 40 0.01 M 40 30 1,200

Straw Kg 40 9 360 Reeds

Steel Pin 0.4 0.016 Pcs 30 80 2,400 Other Materials

Materials Sub Total 39,206 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 6 250 1,500 Skilled Labour M/D2 3 500 1,500 Labour Sub Total 3,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 500 Total Cost 42,706

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

50 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Kandahar Kandahar 570cm 220cm 90cm 90cm 15cm 15cm Province District 180cm 81cm 180cm 180cm Location Wood pole size(L=180,Ø8)cm Fabric sheet(1,200*1,000)cm Goat hair (palas)(1,200*1,000)cm 162cm 570cm Roof plan 840cm Project Name Local Architecture tion (A-A) Sec NGL steel pin Ø 1.6cm Guy rope Ø 1cm Black T ent Vaulted - D urrani Guy rope Ø1cm felt mat sheet Shelter Type Shelter Variation 570cm 90cm 90cm 15cm 15cm

15cm

81cm 180cm 180cm place for tool for place brick masonry(H=30,W=15)cm 12cm

(H=200,Ø8)cm

A (H=180,Ø8)cm A (H=180,D=8)cm 570cm 162cm 840cm Door way L=70cm Front elevation (H=220,Ø10)cm 162cm Floor Plan NGL 162cm 81cm 15cm 60cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

51 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Black Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Ghilzai Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 6 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 14 Construction time (days) 9 Shelter age (years) 6  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 12 10 M2 120 70 8,400 Cotton Sheet 9 8 M2 1 4,000 4,000 Fabric Palas 12 10 M2 120 160 19,200 Wood Pole 2.5 0.1 Pcs 1 200 200

Wood Wood Pole 2.3 0.07 Pcs 8 170 1,360 Goraghil 4 0.5 0.3 M3 0.6 300 180 Kaghil 25 0.6 2 M2 30 30 900

Masonry Pakhsa 25 0.12 0.6 M3 1.8 300 180 Guy Rope 60 0.008 M 60 12 720

Rope Wool tension band 50 0.01 M 50 16 800

Straw Kg 30 25 750 Reeds

Steel Pin 0.4 0.016 Pcs 20 90 1,800 Other

Materials Nails Kg 0.5 300 150

Materials Sub Total 39,000 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 16 300 4,800 Skilled Labour M/D2 8 500 400 Labour Sub Total 8,800 Transportation Transportation Lump sum Total Cost 47,800

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

52 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

Kandahar Kandahar tent sheet NGL

60.0 Province District Guy rope Location Rope Ø1cm Fabric sheet (1,200*1,000)cm Tarpaulin (900*800)cm palas cloth (goat hair) (1,200*1,000)cm 750cm 80cm 726cm 750cm Roof plan steel pin Project Name Local Architecture wall tention rope section(A-A) 12cm wall rope Ø1cm 60cm Peaked - G hilzai Black T ent Shelter Variation Shelter Type A steel pin

50cm guy rope door way door 60cm 80cm 7cm h=220cm 12cm 10cm h=250cm 750cm Mud(pakhsa wall) (w=12,h=60)cm wood pole Ø10cm,h=250cm wood pole Ø7cm,h=230cm Front elevation Floor plan

h=220cm place for tool for place A 476cm 500cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

53 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Cotton Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Herati Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 9 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 24 Construction time (days) 11 Shelter age (years) 2  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 4 3 M2 12 35 420 Cotton Sheet 7.5 7.1 M2 53.25 100 5,325 Fabric Felt 5 1 M2 5 190 950 Wood Lattice 157 0.1 Pcs 66 46 3,036

Wood Door 0.73 1.6 Pcs 1 1,200 1,200 Pakhsa 21 3 0.4 M3 25.2 450 11,340 Bricks (Fired) 0.2 0.1 0.05 Pcs 0.3 1700 510 Cement Bag 2 250 500 Masonry Sand M3 0.3 500 150

Twine 32 M 32 35 1,120 Rope

Nails Kg 4 250 1,000 Corner Brace Pcs 12 200 2,400 Metal Pipe 1.7 0.1 Pcs 46 120 5,520

Other Materials Metal Pipe 2 0.1 Pcs 4 150 600 Materials Sub Total 34,071 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 41 350 14,350 Skilled Labour M/D2 2 500 1,000 Labour Sub Total 15,350 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,800 Total Cost 52,221

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

54 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Shelter Design6 450cm

Herat Injil 450cm

40cm 130cm 280cm 20 cm 20

40cm 280cm 130cm 290cm Province District Steel Struts Location 290cm

Wood Struts 20 cm 20 Section A-A 290cm 1,300cm Side Elevation Project Name Local Architecture Twine/Cotton String 290cm Twine/Cotton String 230cm Wall-Fired Bricks with mud mortar (20*10*5)cm Cotton Cloth Cotton Tent He r at i Tent Up from ground by mud Shelter Type Shelter Variation

Concrete surface

A

460cm 65 cm 65 cm 145

30cm 30cm

230cm 230cm 146 cm 146 the shelter Cotton Cloth Packed Mud (Pakhsa) around 290cm 73 cm 290cm 285 cm Steel Pins Steel Pins Front Elevation 290cm 1,300cm

Plan 157 cm 157 290cm

200cm A Twine/Cotton String Ground Surface Steel Pins around the shelter Cotton Cloth Packed Mud (Pakhsa) Twine/Cotton String 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

55 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Cotton Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Jat Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 4 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 13 Construction time (days) 5 Shelter age (years) 4  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Cotton Sheet 12.53 3.2 M2 40 80 3,208 Fabric

Wood Pole 5 Pcs 5 112 560

Wood Wood Lattice 4.9 0.1 Pcs 4.9 95 466

Goraghil 6 0.8 0.2 M3 0.96 400 384

3 Masonry Pakhsa 2.1 0.2 0.7 M 0.3 400 116

Materials Sub Total 4,733 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 18 350 6,300 Skilled Labour M/D2 6 500 3,000 Labour Sub Total 9,300 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 200 Total Cost 14,233

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

56 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

(Pakhsa) around the shelter of Cotton Cloth Packed Mud Herat Injil

with mud mortar Wall-Sun-Dried Bricks (20*10*5) cm Cotton Cloth 40 cm 40 20 cm 1 cm Province District 20 cm with wood Lattice Frame T-bar pole (Sotun) Cotton Cloth Location

194 cm

133 cm 30 cm 30 435 cm 340 cm Side Elevation Section A-A Project Name Local Architecture

167 cm

218 cm 218

1.11 cm 1.11 cm 103

103 cm 103 111 cm 111 20 cm

Jat Tent Cotton Tent NGL cm 214 20 cm of Shelter Type Shelter Variation of

the shelter Cotton Cloth (Pakhsa) around Packed Mud

Packed Mud (Pakhsa) around the shelter Cotton Cloth 20 cm 40 cm 40 20 cm with wood Lattice Frame Cotton Cloth T-bar pole (Sotun)

194 cm Floor Plan 475 cm 435 cm Front Elevation

55 cm

A A

340 cm 218 cm 218

20 cm

167 cm 167 cm 133

20 cm 20

20 cm 20 103 cm 103

214 cm 214 340cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

57 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Cotton Tent Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Jugi Tent  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 3 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 8 Construction time (days) 4 Shelter age (years) 7  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Cotton Sheet M2 30 300 9,000 Fabric

Bamboo Pole 3.5 0.08 Pcs 1 350 350

Wood Wood Pole 2.5 0.08 Pcs 4 140 560 Twine M 1 500 500

Rope Cotton Rope 40 0.01 M 40 25 1,000

Steel Pin 0.4 0.012 Pcs 12 60 720 Other Materials

Materials Sub Total 12,130 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 6 300 1,800 Skilled Labour M/D2 3 700 2,100 Labour Sub Total 3,900 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 1800 Total Cost 17,830

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

58 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 250cm Behsud Nangarhar Rope Ø 10mm bamboo timberØ8cm Province District wooden pole Location 350cm 350cm Tent sheet canvas sheet Tent sheet Teent sheet Section(A-A) Roof plan Project Name Local Architecture rope ring 8cm 475cm NGL rope Ø10mm Jugi tent Cotton Tent steel pin Ø 1.2cm Shelter Type Shelter Variation A wooden pole Ø 8cm wooden pole 350cm 350cm Tent sheet canvas sheet Floor plan Front elevation rope ring 230cm 245cm A NGL 475cm wooden pole Ø 8cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

59 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Huts Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Chapari  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 4 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 8 Construction time (days) 12 Shelter age (years) 3  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Tarpaulin 7 4 M2 28 50 1,400

Fabric Canvas 7 4 M2 28 30 840

Wood Bough 11.3 1.5 Pcs 16.959 200 3,391

Wood Wood Struts 2.6 Pcs 40 70 2,800

Pakhsa 5 5 0.1 M3 2.5 100 250

2

Masonry Site Work 5 5 M 25 10 250

Guy Rope M 20 20 400 Rope

Straw Kg 1 250 250 Reeds

Materials Sub Total 9,581 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 4 400 1,600 Skilled Labour M/D2 3 600 1,800 Skilled Labour M/D2 1 600 600 Labour Sub Total 4,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 1,200 Total Cost 14,181

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

60 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Khulm Balkh

90 cm 90 150 cm 4 cm Tamarisk Mish of bough Province District Location

380 cm Section A-A Floor Plan

Project Name Local Architecture cotton

Cotton Cloth /hoops wood Frame(yurt) Wooden boughs Lattice cloth around shelter of Packed Mud(Pakhsa) she lter of cotton around cloth Packed Mud(Pakhsa) Huts Circular Chapari w/o Center P ole Shelter Type Shelter Variation Cotton Cloth 260 cm Wooden boughs/hoops wood Lattice Frame(yurt) Twine/Cotton String A

A 380 cm 380 80 cm Roof Plan Front Elevation Wooden boughs/hoops wood Lattice Frame(yurt) Cotton Cloth

cotton shelter of around (pakhsa) Cotton Cloth Packed Mud around shelter of cloth Packed Mud(Pakhsa) 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

61 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Huts Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Kapa  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 10 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 26 Construction time (days) 10 Shelter age (years) 5  Bills of Quantity

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Tarpaulin 7 4 M2 28 90 2,520

2 Fabric Canvas 7 4 M 28 50 1,400 Wood Bough 2 Pcs 23 100 2,300 Wood Bough 2 Pcs 40 70 2,800 Wood Wood Struts 2.5 Pcs 50 30 1,500 Pakhsa 6 4 0.1 M3 2.4 100 240 Cement Bag 4 400 1,600

Masonry Site Work 5 3 M2 15 10 150

Guy Rope 10 M 10 18 180 Rope

Straw Kg 1 300 300 Reeds

Nails Kg 8 10 80 Other

Materials Rain Gutter 0.5 0.1 0.05 Pcs 4 50 200

Materials Sub Total 13,270 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 9 50 450 Skilled Labour M/D2 7 150 1,050 Labour Sub Total 1,500 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 350 Total Cost 13,110

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

62 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 stud

Faiz a bad Badakhshan Nail Province District Nail Rope Tighened to each and nailed to ground Ground Rope Tightened to Each Stud Nailed in the 5cm 9 cm Location 90cm Tent Textile Wooden Stud(Ø5,@240cm c/c 190 cm 290 cm Tent Textile 290 cm 195 cm Project Name Local Architecture Front Elevation Section A-A

90cm

5cm cm 280 280 cm 280 - Kapa Ovate Oblong Huts

Shelter Type Shelter Variation

290 cm 290

5cm 90cm cm 195 280 cm 280 for Tent @ 40cm c/c Ø5cm Wooden Stud 480 cm 480 cm A A Floor Plan Tent Textile Side Elevation NGL Wood Ø50cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

63 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Huts Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Kapa-i-Arab  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 6 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 11 Construction time (days) 10 Shelter age (years) 5  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Tarpaulin 8 8 M2 64 20 1,280

Fabric Canvas 8 8 M2 64 30 1,920

Wood Bough 2 Pcs 40 70 2,800

Wood Wood Struts 2.4 Pcs 50 75 3,750 Pakhsa 10 8 0.1 M3 8 500 4,000 Cement Bag 4 400 1,600

Masonry Site Work 5 6 M2 30 30 900

Twine 15 0.02 M 30 30 900 Rope

Straw Kg 1 250 250 Reeds

Materials Sub Total 17,400 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 3 400 1,200 Skilled Labour M/D2 2 600 1,200 Skilled Labour M/D2 1 600 600 Labour Sub Total 3,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 400 Total Cost 20,800

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

64 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Faiz a bad Badakhshan

Province District

240 cm 240 240 cm 240 Location 100 cm 100 cm Tent Textile Straw Over The Textile Tent Textile Straw Over The Textile 90 cm 90 cm 290 cm 290 cm Section A-A Project Name Local Architecture Front Elevation 100 cm 100 cm NGL Huts Rectangular - Kapa -i- Arab

Shelter Type Shelter Variation

100 cm 100 cm 90 cm 100 240 cm 240 A A Wooden Stud for Tent 400 cm SIde Elevation Floor Plan Tent Textile Straw Over The Textile NGL 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

65 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Huts Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Kodai  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 13 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 24 Construction time (days) 15 Shelter age (years) 6  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 6 7 M2 42 30 1,260 Tarpaulin 6 7 M2 42 200 8,400 Fabric Cotton Sheet 7 7 M2 1 20,000 20,000 Wood Pole 5 0.05 Pcs 20 50 1,000 Wood Pole 2.7 0.04 Pcs 12 60 720

Wood Wood Pole 2 0.04 Pcs 5 45 225 Wood Pole 2.5 0.04 Pcs 40 200 8,000

Pakhsa 17.5 0.2 0.3 M3 1.05 300 315 Masonry

Guy Rope 50 0.01 M 50 16 800 Rope

Metal Pipe 5 0.07 Pcs 12 60 720 Other Materials

Materials Sub Total 34,640 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 18 300 5,400 Skilled Labour M/D2 6 1,000 6,000 Labour Sub Total 11,400 Transportation Transportation Lump sum Total Cost 46,040

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

66 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Matun Khost Province District 500cm NGL Location Plastic tarpaulin Plastic sheet Wood pole Ø 4cm cotton tarpaulin 300cm 300cm Roof plan Project Name Local Architecture section(A-A) 100cm 95cm 95cm 100cm 205cm Mud(pakhsa wall) (H=30,W=20)cm Huts Ovate O blong - K odai Shelter Type Shelter Variation A steel pin NGL 20cm 99cm 99cm 99cm 99cm 99cm rope 60cm door way 300cm 300cm 260cm 300cm Floor plan 20cm Mud(pakhsa wall) (H=30,W=20)cm Front Elevation 20cm 500cm 100cm A 700cm steel pin (L=40,Ø1.2)cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

67 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Huts Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Lacheq  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 6 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 12 Construction time (days) 26 Shelter age (years) 27  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Felt 42 3 M2 126 84 10,584

2 Fabric Palas 12 1.8 M 21.6 120 2,592 Wood Bough 4 Pcs 3 80 240 Wood Struts 3 Pcs 70 50 3,500

Wood Wood Struts 1.5 Pcs 34 39 1,020 Wood Struts 1.9 Pcs 128 40 5,120 Guy Rope 10 M 100 10 1,000 Rag Belt 13 M 13 100 1,300 Wool tension band 13 0.01 M 13 60 780

Rope Wool tension band 22 0.02 M 22 40 880 Wool tension band 12 0.02 M 12 60 720 Wool tension band 1.5 M 70 40 2,800 Materials Sub Total 30,536 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 12 200 2,400 Skilled Labour M/D2 12 800 9,600 Labour Sub Total 12,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum Total Cost 43,336

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

68 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Khulm Balkh Province District willow strut,L=300cm Felt mat String NGL Location Willow strut , L=150 cm 400cm Section A-A Project Name Local Architecture

Side Elevation

180cm 80cm 100cm 360cm Circular - Lach e q Huts Shelter Type Shelter Variation A NGL 400cm 200cm 100cm Floor Plan

Front Elevation

180 cm 180 180cm

A 360 cm 360 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

69 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Cave Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Samoch  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 38 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 74 Construction time (days) 56 Shelter age (years) 5  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Door 2 3 Pcs 1 6,000 6,000

Wood Door 1 2 Pcs 1 4,000 4,000

Kaghil 101 2 0.03 M2 6 233 1,414

Masonry Gypsum Bag 70 90 6,300

Straw Kg 2 500 1,000 Reeds

Window 2 3 Pcs 1 6,000 6,000

Other 2

Materials Glass 2.5 4 M 10 300 3,000

Materials Sub Total 27,714 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 90 350 31,500 Skilled Labour M/D2 90 800 72,000 Labour Sub Total 103,500 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2000 Total Cost 133,214

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

70 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Bamyan B a mayn Province District

Moutian material

Moutian material 200cm

Location

100cm 100cm 300cm 100cm 100cm Section(A-A) Project Name Local Architecture 100cm 300cm 100cm Front Elevation

300cm

180cm 20cm Cave Samoch Shelter Type

Shelter Variation A 100cm Mountain slope

100cm 100cm 100cm 100cm 300cm

Floor Plan

500cm 600cm A 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

71 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Curved Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Fired Brick and Wood Beams  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 21 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 55 Construction time (days) 21 Shelter age (years) 10  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Fabric Plastic Sheet 9 4 M2 36 60 2,160 Wood Plank 6 0.12 0.025 Pcs 2 400 800 Timber 3.5 0.2 0.2 Pcs 6 500 3,000 Timber 2.5 0.12 0.15 Pcs 2 450 900

Wood Timber 1.3 0.12 0.15 Pcs 4 300 1,200 Timber 0.8 0.12 0.15 Pcs 2 220 440 Door 1 1.95 Pcs 1 3,500 3,500 Goraghil 9 3.5 0.06 M3 1.89 300 567 Kaghil M2 177 25 4,425 Clay M3 5.28 300 1,584

Gypsum Bag 25 160 4,000

Pakhsa 26.5 0.5 0.5 M3 6.625 300 1,989 Masonry Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.22 0.12 0.07 Pcs 6,500 2 13,000 Bricks (Fired) 0.15 0.15 0.03 Pcs 500 5 2,500 Cement Bag 4 300 1,200 Soil M3 1.27 300 381 Reeds Straw Kg 150 12 1,800 Rain Gutter 0.5 0.1 0.05 Pcs 2 100 200 Window 2 2 Pcs 1 6,000 6,000 Other

Materials Cable 10 0.006 M 1 3,000 3,000 Materials Sub Total 52,646 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 45 300 13,500 Skilled Labour M/D2 28 600 16,800 Labour Sub Total 30,300 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 3,000 Total Cost 85,946

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

72 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 25cm 300cm 50cm 277cm 25cm Kandahar Kandahar 25cm 50cm 80cm Province District

timber beam size(350*20*20)cm sun dried brick vault T= 20cm L1=350cm plastic T= 0.3mm mud(gora ghil) T= 6cm g y psum mortar(gach-o-khak) T= 3cm Straw mud plaster(kaghil) T= 2cm+2cm soil for roof leveling T= 3cm 625cm Location mud(pakhsa) (50*50)cm L3=130cm 900cm 900cm

Roof plan

80cm L2=250cm sun dried brick wall Project Name Local Architecture L3 section(A-A) 190cm 250cm L4=80cm 25cm 175cm 100cm Fired B rick V aults and T imber B eams Curved R oof 25cm NGL 50cm 350cm Shelter Type Shelter Variation 25cm 16cm 300cm A

25cm

250cm 25cm place for tools for place 350cm 600cm 195cm

900cm 100cm

D(100*195) Floor Plan D(200*200) 200cm Front elevation 125cm 100cm 50cm 100cm 225cm 125cm 25cm 150cm A 25cm 25cm 100cm 175cm NGL 350cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

73 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Curved Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Gumbazi  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 24 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 64 Construction time (days) 24 Shelter age (years) 19  Bills of Quantity

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Plastic Sheet 18 3 M2 54 35 1,890 Fabric

Wood Plank 1.2 0.12 0.015 Pcs 23 60 1,380

Wood Door 0.6 1.4 Pcs 1 2,400 2,400 Kaghil 67.5 2 0.03 M2 4.05 1,200 4,860 Clay 36.3 4 0.05 M3 7.26 700 5,082 Gypsum Bag 1 210 210

Masonry Pakhsa 37 0.5 2 M3 37 700 25,900 Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.2 0.2 0.05 Pcs 5 1,600 8,755

Rain Gutter 0.5 0.1 0.05 Pcs 1 100 100

Window 0.3 0.32 Pcs 2 350 700

2

Other Materials Glass 1.5 1 M 1.5 430 645

Materials Sub Total 51,922 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 80 350 28,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 18 500 9,000 Labour Sub Total 37,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,900 Total Cost 91,822

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

74 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Shelter Design6

140 cm 140 50 cm 50 10 cm 10 20 cm Wood Plank (120*12*1.5)cm Straw mud plaster T=5cm Plastic Sheet

Herat Injil 80 cm

54 cm cm 180 90 cm 90 cm 50 17 cm 17 Province District 100 cm 15 cm

248 cm

22 cm 22 140 cm 140 Location 820 cm 54 cm Section A-A 720 cm Roof Plan Project Name Local Architecture 310 cm

10 cm

24 cm 24 136 cm 136

15 cm 34 cm

610 cm 610

90 cm 90 cm 91 cm 99

30 cm 30 20 cm

Gumbazi Curved Roof 310 cm 310

136 cm 136 Shelter Type Shelter Variation

24 cm 24 170 cm 170

A Straw mud plaster (kaghil) Sun-Dried Bricks with mud mortar (20x20x5)cm

170 cm 170 140 cm 140 50cm cm 10 2 cm 54 cm 100 cm

Sun-Dried Bricks with mud mortar (20 *20 * 5)cm (Mud (plaster with straw) T=2cm Clay Morter T=5cm 50 cm 50 60 cm 100 cm 150 cm 60 cm 248 cm

200 cm 720 cm cm 63 54 cm

Floor Plan 720cm cm

30 cm 60 cm

38 32 cm 32 70 cm 310 cm 60 cm 46 cm 66 cm 54 cm

30 cm

Front Elevation

32 cm 32 54 cm 54 cm 54

178 cm 178 cm 80 cm 244

54 cm 54 610 cm 610

A

90 cm 90 cm 200

20 cm 20 136 cm 136

310 cm 310 24 cm 24 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

75 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Curved Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Tazar  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 24 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 53 Construction time (days) 24 Shelter age (years) 26  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Tarpaulin 6.6 1.5 M2 9.9 35 347 Fabric

Wood Pole 2 0.15 Pcs 40 200 8,000

Wood Door Pcs 2 2,500 5,000 Kaghil 40 4 0.03 M2 4.8 300 1,440 Clay M3 34.5 300 10,350 Pakhsa 9.6 4.3 0.1 M3 4.128 300 1,238 Masonry Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.3 0.3 0.05 Pcs 20,000 2 40,000

Straw Kg 4 200 800 Reeds

Rain Gutter Pcs 4 200 800

Window Pcs 3 2,500 7,500

Glass 0.5 0.7 M2 0.35 500 175 Other Materials Materials Sub Total 75,650 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 60 300 18,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 22 800 17,600 Labour Sub Total 35,600 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 3000 Total Cost 114,250

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

76 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 NGL 57cm 57cm Khulm Balkh

90cm 90cm 210cm Province District 336cm 336cm Mud Mortar (Straw T=2cm) Mud Mortar T= 5cm Plastic Sheet Sun Dried Brick Size(30*30*5)cm Location 960 cm 960 cm 90cm 90cm Plastic Sheet Mud Mortar T= 5cm Mud Mortar (Straw T= 2cm) Sun Dried Brick Size(30x30x5)cm Roof Plan Section A-A 178cm 178cm Project Name Local Architecture 90cm 90cm

119cm 119cm

100cm cm 230 100cm

98cm 90cm 82cm

98cm

430 cm 430 368cm Curved Roof Tazar Shelter Type Shelter Variation A NGL 57cm 57cm

90cm 90cm 210cm 336cm 336cm 960 cm 960 cm 90cm 90cm Floor Plan Room 178cm 178cm Front Elevation 90cm 90cm

119cm 119cm

100cm 90cm 100cm

98cm 90cm 82cm

98cm 70cm 70cm

430 cm 430 368cm A 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

77 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Brick and Wood Frame  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 28 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 64 Construction time (days) 39 Shelter age (years) 36  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Parachute Sheet M2 81.6 50 4,080 Fabric

Wood Plank 3.75 0.2 0.025 Pcs 400 23 9,000 Wood Plank 3.4 0.2 0.025 Pcs 360 18.75 6,750 Wood Plank 4.1 0.2 0.025 Pcs 440 15 6,600 Wood Plank 6 0.2 0.025 Pcs 16.5 550 9,075 Wood Pole 5.45 0.2 Pcs 9 200 1,800 Wood Wood Pole 4.9 0.2 Pcs 10 180 1,800 Wood Pole 5.75 0.2 Pcs 9 230 2,070 Wood Pole 0.95 0.2 Pcs 31 70 2,170 Door 1 2 Pcs 3 5,000 15,000 Goraghil M3 29.22 300 8,766 Kaghil M2 105.08 40 4,203 Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.22 0.11 0.07 Pcs 23,655 2 47,310

Masonry Stone M3 21.5 250 5,375 Site Work M2 81.6 100 8,160 Window 1 1 Pcs 1 3,500 3,500 Window 2 1.5 Pcs 4 7,000 28,000 Glass M2 15 400 6,000

Other Materials Water Tanker 40 700 28,000 Materials Sub Total 197,659 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 210 300 63,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 70 700 49,000 Labour Sub Total 112,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum Total Cost 309,659

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

78 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 575cm 50cm 50cm 475cm Gardez Pakt y a 95cm 50cm 260cm 45cm Stone masonry with mud Mud(goraghil)thick T= 8cm Wood plank size(L=6m,W=20,H=2.5)cm Wood pole size(L=400,Ø20)cm Plastic sheet Soil for roof leveling thick T=3cm Straw mud plaster (kaghil) two layerT= 2cm+2cm Province District wood plan(6*20*2.5)cm Roof plan Wood beam(575*20)cm 340cm Location 45cm 500cm 1,070cm 150cm 45cm Section(A-A) 490cm Project Name Local Architecture 300cm Brick masonry T= 35cm Wood pole(95*20)cm Stone with mud masonry thick T=45cm Brick masonry thick T=45cm Back filling of soil thickT= 47cm Straw mud plaster in floor(kahghil) thickT= 3cm 45cm NGL 1020cm 50cm Flat R oof Brick and W ood F rame alls ( K abuli H ouse) 575cm 45cm 45cm 200cm 87.5cm 87.5cm 20cm A Shelter Type Shelter Variation 50cm 260cm 70cm W1 W1 340cm 200cm W1(200*1.5)cm Floor plan 580cm D(100*200)cm 70cm 200cm 45cm 50cm 105cm 970cm 1,070cm D1 970cm 45cm Front elevation W1 100cm D1 D1 490cm 300cm 100cm 100cm W2(100*100)cm NGL 45cm 45cm A 410cm 375cm 920cm 1,020cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

79 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Concrete Block and Mud  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 23 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 51 Construction time (days) 50 Shelter age (years) 16  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Plastic Sheet 16 5 M2 64.8 20 1,296 Fabric Wood Plank 6 0.2 0.002 Pcs 9 600 5,400 Wood Pole 4 0.2 0.02 Pcs 27 200 5,400 Wood Pole 0.85 0.2 0.02 Pcs 7 80 560

Wood Lintel (Door) 1.3 0.2 0.2 Pcs 6 400 2,400 Lintel (Window) 2 0.2 0.2 Pcs 4 300 1,200 Door 0.9 2.3 Pcs 3 5,000 15,000 Goraghil M3 27.2 300 8,160 Kaghil M2 190 40 7,600 Kaghil M2 220 40 8,800 Concrete Block 0.35 0.2 0.2 Pcs 1,311 25 32,775

Masonry Stone M3 3 500 1,500 Sand M3 1.9 500 950 Site Work 20 10 M2 120 100 12,000 Straw Kg 64 14 896

Reeds Woven Reeds 15.5 3 M2 46.5 100 4,650 Window 1.5 1.5 Pcs 2 7,000 14,000 Glass M2 3.4 400 1,360 Water Tanker 30 700 21,000

Other Materials Plastic Pipe 1 0.1 M 4 100 400 Materials Sub Total 145,347 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 125 300 37,500 Skilled Labour M/D2 60 600 36,000 Labour Sub Total 73,500 Total Cost 218,847

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

80 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 50cm 35cm 280cm 16cm Gardez Pakt y a 260cm 35cm District Province woven reeds (chach) 500cm wooden plank thick(600*20*2)cm 20cm Plastic Mud(goraghil) T= 3cm Soil for roof leveling T= 3cm Straw mud plaster(kaghil) T=2cm+2cm Reeds Wood pole size(L=400,Ø20)cm Location 34cm 1,570cm 1,620cm 330cm 1,570cm Roof plan

Project Name Local Architecture wode pole Ø 20cm Balock with mud mortar 600cm 50cm section(A-A) Stone masonry with mud(35*20)cm Block with mud mortarT=35cm Natural soil Straw mud plaster(kaghil) T= 3cm 50cm Flat roof Concrete Block and M ud W alls 50cm 400cm NGL 20cm Shelter Type Shelter Variation A 276cm 500cm 150cm W1(150*150)cm D1 D1 330cm 1,620cm 1,570cm Floor Plan 90cm 35cm D(90*230)cm Front elevation W1 600cm 35cm 50cm 280cm NGL 25cm A 350cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

81 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Concrete Block Structure  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 17 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 22 Construction time (days) 12 Shelter age (years) 9  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Plastic Sheet 5.5 3.9 M2 42 25 1,050 Fabric

Wood Plank 6 0.2 0.025 Pcs 19 1,250 23,750 Lintel (Door) 1.5 0.14 0.07 Pcs 3 540 1,620

Wood Lintel (Window) 2 0.14 0.07 Pcs 4 540 2,160 Door 1 2 Pcs 2 2,000 4,000 Goraghil M3 2.24 350 784 Kaghil 5.4 3.9 M2 21.06 30 632 Concrete Block 0.3 0.2 0.15 Pcs 580 18 10,440 Cement Bag 10 350 3,500 Masonry Sand M3 1.5 700 1,050 Soil M3 2.62 350 917

Straw Kg 70 10 700 Reeds

Steel I-beam 4 0.07 0.14 Pcs 16 540 8,640

Window 1.5 1.5 Pcs 2.25 1,778 4,000

2

Other Materials Glass 1.5 1.5 M 1.7 450 765 Materials Sub Total 64,008 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 30 300 9,000 Masonry M/D2 15 700 10,500 Carpentry M/D2 2 700 1,400 Labour Sub Total 20,900 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 9,000 Total Cost 93,908

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

82 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

390cm

Nangarhar Behsud

cm il (200*14*7) il e n i L Window s and the base is safe 30cm 290cm Note:There is no foundation because the shelter is in mountain Province District Plastic Sheet Wood PlankT=2.5cm Straw mud (Kaghil) T= 2cm+2cm I beam size(400*14x7)cm Mud (goraghil) T= 7cm Soil for roof leveling T= 3cm Plastic Sheet Location T=20cm Concrete balock wall I Beams (400*14*7)cm 540cm Wooden Plank (200*25*2.5)cm 390cm Natural Soil Compacted Soil T= 15cm Project Name Local Architecture

150cm Lintel for window (7*14)cm window for Lintel Section (A-A) Roof plan

NGL

cm l (150*14*7) l e nt Li Door 20cm C oncrete Bl o c k and Cement W alls Flat R oof Shelter Type Shelter Variation 390cm 320cm

W (150*150)cm A A 540cm 540cm Front elevation Block wall D(100*200)cm Floor plan 100cm

20cm Rain Gutter Rain NGL 350cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

83 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Flat Roof Structure (Bamyan)  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 18 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 61 Construction time (days) 20 Shelter age (years) 8  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Tarpaulin 11 6 M2 66 22 1,452 Fabric Wood Plank 1.2 0.12 0.15 Pcs 50 80 4,000 Wood Pole 6 Pcs 8 500 4,000 Wood Pole 1.5 Pcs 10 200 2,000 Wood Wood Pole 5 Pcs 6 500 3,000 Door 1 2 Pcs 1 3,500 3,500 Kaghil 66 3 0.03 M2 5.94 300 1,782 Clay M3 16.8 233 3,914 Stone 46 0.5 0.4 M3 9.2 1,000 9,200

Masonry Cement Bag 75 400 30,000 Sand M3 16.78 1,000 16,780 Rain Gutter 0.5 0.1 0.05 Pcs 3 100 300 Window 0.8 0.8 Pcs 4 1,500 6,000 Glass 1.5 7.65 M2 11.5 300 3,444

Other Materials Plastic Pipe 1 0.06 M 2 100 200 Materials Sub Total 89,571 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 39 450 13,650 Skilled Labour M/D2 15 1,000 15,000 Labour Sub Total 28,650 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 3,000 Total Cost 121,221

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

84 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Shelter Design6

295 cm 295

245cm 40cm Bamyan Bamyan 10cm h il (Straw Mud)

40cm 80cm Province District 80cm 200cm

Wood pole (Ø1.5 cm@45cm c/c) 80cm 40cm h il (Straw Mud) Location Wood pole (Ø15 mm@45cm c/c) Wood plank (120* 3*12)cm Plastic sheet and 5cm Kag 80cm

Roof Plan 1.5 3.0

500cm 1,060cm 80cm Plastic sheet and 5cm Kag Compacted soil T=40cm Project Name Local Architecture Section A-A 80cm

40cm 80cm 200.0 80cm Brick or Pakhsa Walls Bamyan Variant Flat Roof 40cm

gh il) A Shelter Type Shelter Variation NGL 40cm Packed mud(Pakhsa wall) Straw mud plaster(ka 80cm

200cm 80cm 140cm

gh il) T=5cm

80cm

240cm 80cm 40cm 70cm 40cm

500cm 90cm

1,060cm

Wood pole (Ø1.5 cm@45cm c/c) Wood plank (120*3*12)cm Straw mud plaster (ka Plastic 180cm Floor Plan 70cm 40cm 90cm 1,620cm

80cm 1.3

80.0 140cm 1.3 200cm Front Elevation

80cm 80.0 Stone masonry

Soil

A

70cm

300cm 40cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

85 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Flat Roof Structure (Rural)  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 25 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 61 Construction time (days) 26 Shelter age (years) 8  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Tarpaulin 7.45 5.38 M2 40.08 100 4,008 Plastic Bag 5.6 0.5 M2 2.8 15 42 2

Fabric Cotton Sheet 7 2.87 M 20.09 35 703 Cardboard 4.7 0.6 M2 2.82 15 42.3 Bamboo Pole 3 0.08 Pcs 3 60 180 Wood Lattice 1 0.1 Pcs 21 40 840

Wood Timber 1 Pcs 32 45 1,440 Door 0.5 1.4 Pcs 1 2,300 2,300 Kaghil 3.1 0.75 0.03 M2 0.6975 2,000 140 Clay 23.5 0.25 0.13 M3 0.76375 325 248 Pakhsa 32 0.2 1.85 M3 11.84 325 3,848 Masonry Stone 4.6 0.3 0.4 M3 0.55 570 314 Metal Pipe 17 0.03 Pcs 17 220 3,740 Metal Pipe 6.5 0.05 Pcs 6.5 450 2,925 Other 2 Materials Glass 0.6 1 M 0.6 450 270 Materials Sub Total 21,040 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 36 350 12,600 Skilled Labour M/D2 8 500 4,000 Labour Sub Total 16,600 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,300 Total Cost 39,940

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

86 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Shelter Design6

330 cm 330 320 cm 320

23 cm 23 127 cm 127 cm 140 50 cm 50

276 cm 276 27 cm 27 27 cm 27

Injil Herat 27 cm Province 55 cm District Wood Beam (Timber) Wood Plank (60 *10 * 2) cm Clay Mort a r Tarpaulin and Plastic Sheet Location 55 cm 690 cm 690 cm Section A-A Project Name Local Architecture Roof Plan W all s Brick or Pakhsa ( Rural ) Flat Roof

40 cm 27 cm Sun Dried Bricks

Shelter Type Shelter Variation

NGL 330 cm 330

the Walls

Stone with Mud mortar Under

27 cm 27

100cm cm 163 27 cm 27 12 cm 12 A 27 cm

70 cm 195 cm 195 70 cm 85 cm 145 cm 60 cm 30 cm

70 cm 79 cm

690 cm 110 cm 110

690 cm Front Elevation cm 118 Floor Plan 515 cm

70 cm 79 cm

110 cm 110

118 cm 118

290 cm 290 cm 50 A 27 cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

87 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Flat Roof Structure (Urban)  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 25 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 64 Construction time (days) 28 Shelter age (years) 12  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Fabric Tarpaulin 14 4 M2 56 50 2,800 Wood Plank Pcs 18 800 14,400 Wood Pole Pcs 35 700 24,500 Timber Pcs 12 700 8,400 Wood Door 0.8 2 Pcs 1 3,000 3,000 Door 0.9 2 Pcs 2 3,000 6,000 Goraghil 12.9 3.8 0.07 M3 3.4 500 1,716 Kaghil 0.04 12.9 3.8 M2 2 500 980 Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.22 0.11 0.06 Pcs 31 1,100 34,075 Stone 35 0.8 0.8 M3 22.4 500 11,200

Masonry Stone 35 0.4 0.345 M3 4.83 500 2,415 Cement Bag 1 400 400 Site Work 15.9 7 M2 111.3 44 4,897 Reeds Straw Kg 10 250 2,500 Nails Kg 8 70 560 Rain Gutter 0.5 0.1 0.05 Pcs 3 100 300 Window 0.6 0.6 Pcs 1 700 700 Window 1.9 1.5 Pcs 1 3,500 3,500 Window 1.9 1.7 Pcs 1 3,500 3,500 Other Materials Glass M2 5 500 2,500 Materials Sub Total 128,343 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 25 400 10,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 25 850 21,250 Skilled Labour M/D2 1 1,000 1,000 Labour Sub Total 32,250 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 2,000 Total Cost 162,593

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

88 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Shelter Design6

570 cm 570 420 cm 420

Faiz a bad Badakhshan

135 cm 135 cm 300 cm 135

270 cm 270 80cm

30cm 40cm 35cm 60cm Province District 80cm Wooden Pole(Ø 17cm) 200cm 250 cm Wooden Pole(Ø= 17cm) Mud MortarT= 5cm Plastic Sheet Plank T=2cm Straw mud plaster T=5cm 25cm Location 35cm Compact soil T=10CM 35cm 50cm 90cm Roof Plan 875 cm 875 cm 100cm Section A-A 520 cm Project Name Local Architecture 200 cm 80cm

35cm

35cm Wall s

310 cm 310 190cm

35cm 35cm 570 cm 570 Flat Roof ( Urban ) Bric k or Pakhsa

Shelter Type Shelter Variation

570 cm 570

135 cm 135 cm 300 cm 135 35cm 60cm

200cm 250 cm 200cm 200 cm 200 25cm 35cm 35cm 50cm 90cm 875 cm 875 cm 875cm 100cm Floor Plan 520 cm 200 cm

200cm

A A Front Elevation 200 cm 200 80cm

35cm

35cm

310 cm 310 190cm

35cm 35cm 570 cm 570 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

89 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Shervani  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 18 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 34 Construction time (days) 15 Shelter age (years) 4  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN) Plastic Sheet 15 3 M2 45 30 1,350 Tarpaulin 13.67 3 M2 41.01 135 5,536 Fabric Cotton Sheet 44.73 3 M2 134.19 55 7,280 Wood Plank 45 0.2 0.015 Pcs 0.135 15,000 2,025 Timber 3 0.15 0.25 Pcs 3 180 540

Wood Timber 2 0.1 0.1 Pcs 20 60 1,200 Door 0.75 1.4 Pcs 1 2,800 2,800 Kaghil 74 2.5 0.04 M2 7.4 1,300 9,620 Clay 6 3.1 0.05 M3 0.9 500 465 Pakhsa 8.2 4.2 0.2 M3 6.9 700 4,822 Bricks (Sun-dried) 0.3 0.12 0.1 Pcs 10 1,350 13,900 Masonry Cement Bag 5 300 1,500 Sand M3 2.24 450 1,008 Steel Pin 0.4 0.016 Pcs 115 2 230 Rain Gutter 0.6 0.12 0.05 Pcs 4 70 280 Window 0.55 0.75 Pcs 1 600 600

2 Other Materials Glass 1.2 1.2 M 1.44 330 475 Materials Sub Total 53,731 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 96 350 33,600 Skilled Labour M/D2 14 500 7,000 Labour Sub Total 40,600 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 0 Total Cost 96,831

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

90 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

Herat Herat

270 cm 270

70 cm 70 cm 200

26 cm

15 cm 15 15 cm 15

Province District 190cm cm 190 cm 165 20 cm Cotton Cloth Sheet inside Roof Plastic Sheet Tarpaulin 5 cm Kaghil(Mud plaster with straw) Cotton Cloth Sheet Wood Beam (Timber) Location

185 cm

Cotton Cloth Sheet inside Roof Plastic Sheet Tarpaulin 5 cm Kaghil(Mud plaster with straw) Cotton Cloth Sheet Wood Beam (Timber) 70 cm 70 497 cm 70 cm 20 cm

820 cm 170 cm 170 820 cm Project Name Local Architecture 26 cm 20 cm Roof Plan Section A-A 245 cm

26 cm

30 cm cm 20

Flat Roof Shervani Roof 410 cm 410 26cm

Shelter Type Shelter Variation (Pakhsa) Packed Mud

A cm 20

26 cm 26 358 cm 358 cm 26 cm 145 70 cm 70 26 cm 60 cm

bathroom 185 cm

20 cm 20 75 cm 75 70cm 497 cm 70cm 55 cm 820 cm 820 cm 26 cm Floor Plan Front Elevation 245 cm

75 cm 75 cm 136 cm 136

26 cm

410 cm 410

200 cm 200

55 15 A

30 cm

20 cm 20 5.4 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

91 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Steel Structure  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 8 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 18 Construction time (days) 7 Shelter age (years) 3  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Cotton Sheet 15.5 2.5 M2 36 250 9,000 Fabric

Bamboo Pole 5.5 0.08 Pcs 7 360 2,520 Wood

Nails Kg 50 30 1,500 Metal Pipe 2.5 0.05 Pcs 15 290 4,350 Metal Pipe 2.4 0.05 Pcs 6 290 1,740 Metal Pipe 5 0.05 Pcs 16 290 4,640 Metal Sheet 5.5 5.7 0.004 M2 31.35 310 9,720 Other Materials Bolts Kg 2 500 1,000 Materials Sub Total 34,469 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 30 300 9,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 17 700 11,900 Labour Sub Total 20,900 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 3,000 Total Cost 58,369

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

92 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6 Behsud Nangarhar A 550cm Iron sheet thick 0.4mm 40cm elbow joint Province District Steel pipe 5cm Location 285cm Ø8cm 500cm 370cm 380cm Roof plan Project Name Local Architecture bamboo wood section(A-A) 285cm NGL

A Bamboo wood Ø8cm wood Bamboo Steel Frame Flat Roof 130cm 520cm Shelter Type Shelter Variation 260cm 260cm 190cm Ø 8cm Steel pipe 5cm 370cm 500cm 380cm 380cm Floor plan Front elevation NGL 60cm (100x160)cm Door in tarpaulin 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

93 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Stone Walls  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 32 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 83 Construction time (days) 48 Shelter age (years) 18  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Tarpaulin 18 3 M2 54 12 648 Fabric

Wood Plank 2 0.22 0.02 Pcs 190 120 22,800 Wood Pole 4 Pcs 28 500 14,000 Timber 2.5 0.15 0.25 Pcs 12 200 2,400 Wood Timber 1.5 0.1 0.1 Pcs 9 100 900 Door 0.9 1.9 Pcs 5 4,000 20,000 Kaghil 56 5 M2 280 80 22,400

3

Masonry Stone 31.3 0.6 6 M 112.68 400 45,072

Straw Kg 210 8 1,680 Reeds

Window 1.5 1.5 Pcs 5 3,500 17,500

2 Other Glass M 8 320 2,560 Materials

Materials Sub Total 149,960 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 40 400 16,000 Skilled Labour M/D2 15 600 9,000 Labour Sub Total 25,000 Transportation Transportation Lump sum 3,000 Total Cost 177,960

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

94 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

A 590cm

450cm

80cm

60cm Panjsh i r Bazarak

180cm

cm 240

60cm

30cm 30cm

60cm 330cm 60cm Province District 115cm Wood Plank (60 *10 *2) cm Wood Beam (Timber) Clay Mort a r Tarpaulin and Plastic Sheet Location 150cm

210cm

70cm 20cm 100cm 1,170 cm 1,170 cm Project Name Local Architecture Roof Plan 100cm

210cm 90cm s Section A-A 150cm 115cm Massive Stone Wall Flat Roof 60cm A

Shelter Type Shelter Variation

450 cm 450

330 cm 330

60cm 60cm 60cm

330 cm 150cm 150cm

180mc 180mc

60cm 240 cm 240 cm

100 250cm 180mc Floor Plan 1,170 cm 60cm Front Elevation

150cm 150cm

330cm 180mc 180mc Wooden pole Ø 15 cm @ 40 C/C Wooden Plank (60 *22 *2)cm 60cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

95 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

4 SHELTER TYPE: Flat Roof Shelter Variation Prevalence

Shelter Variation: Timber and Stone Walls  Shelter Variation Attributes

General Attributes1 Skilled labour (M/D)2 25 Unskilled labour (M/D)2 53 Construction time (days) 50 Shelter age (years) 9  Bills of Quantity3

Materials Material Type Material Length5 Width/ Diameter5 Height/Depth 5 Unit Quantity Unit Cost (AFN) Total (AFN)

Plastic Sheet 10.5 8 M2 156 30 4,680 Fabric

Wood Pole 3.5 0.08 0.1 Pcs 51 800 40,800 Timber 4.5 0.15 0.25 Pcs 8 4,000 32,000 Timber 3.5 0.08 0.1 Pcs 51 800 40,800 Lintel (Door) 1.5 0.15 0.15 Pcs 8 250 2,000

Wood Lintel (Window) 3.5 0.15 0.15 Pcs 2 400 800 Lintel (Window) 2.5 0.15 0.15 Pcs 4 300 1,200 Door 1 2.4 Pcs 2 1,200 2,400 Door 1.5 2 Pcs 2 1,400 2,800 Stone M3 64.35 450 28,959

3

Masonry Soil M 17.16 350 6,006

Straw Kg 140 10 1,400 Reeds

Rain Gutter Pcs 2 80 160

Other 2

Materials Glass 3.5 2 M 8.8 430 3,784 Materials Sub Total 211,239 Labour Unskilled Labour M/D2 80 350 28,000 Masonry M/D2 40 700 28,000 Carpentry M/D2 12 700 8,400 Labour Sub Total 64,400 Transportation Transportation Lump sum Total Cost 275,638

1. Data from IIs; all results were averaged across all responses. 4. Any province the homeowners reported the shelter was present in was included, 2. Man/days, or the number of days of labour required by one labourer to construct regardless of the percentage of responses. the shelter. 5. Measurements are in meters. 3. Data from Shelter Design KIIs; all data is from a representative example shelter.

96 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 Shelter Design6

a Asad a bad Kunar safe. 40cm because the shelter is in mountain ous a rea and Note:There is no foundation the base is Province District 320cm Wood beams (15x25)cm Location Timbers (8cmx10cm) c/c @44 cm Wood plank T=2.5cm Plastic Plastic Soil T= 5cm Wood timber beam size(15*25)cm Soil T= 5cm 1,050cm 450cm Dry stone walls Roof plan Project Name Local Architecture 800cm

350cm

Wood plank thick 2.5cm Lintel (15x15)cm Lintel Wood beams (15x25)cm beams Wood section(A-A) Timber Flat Roof Timber and S tone W alls 800cm NGL Shelter Type Shelter Variation 700cm

50cm

250cm 350cm 150cm w2 (150*150)cm w2 150cm

rain gutter A A W1 (250*200)cm 1,050cm 150cm D1 W2 150cm 1050cm D2(80*200)cm D1 (100*240)cm Floor plan Front elevation 150cm W2 Timber Dry stone walls D2

150cm NGL gutter rain 360cm 150cm 800cm 6. Shelter designs are a representation of the shelter type variation, and should not be taken to exact measurements variation.

97 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

ANNEXES

Above: Brahui Black Tent shelter type variation, Matun District, Khost Below: Concrete Block and Mud Flat Roof shelter type variation, Gardez Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020. District, Paktya Province. Photo credit: REACH Initiative, November 2020.

98 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 ANNEX I: SAMPLING FRAME

For sampling, a minimum of one district in each region was identified to conduct face-to-face interviews. After identifying the local shelter type variations present, 1 KIIs with shelter experts and 9 IIs with homeowners were conducted per shelter type variation in each district. 2 FGDs were conducted per shelter type in each district. A total of 63 KIIs, 585 IIs, and 62 FGDs were conducted in total. South Central East North North East South West East

Shelter Type Bamyan Kabul Panjshir Kunar Nangarhar Balkh Samangan Badakhshan Kunduz Takhar Kandahar Nimroz Khost Paktya Ghor Herat Shelter Family Bamyan Kabul Qara Bagh Bazarak Abad Asad Behsud Jalalabad Khulm Aybak Abad Faiz (Badakhshan) Imam Sahib Chal Taloqan Kandahar Daman Zaranj Matun Gardez Feroz Koh Hirat Injil

Vaulted - Durrani 1 1 1 Vaulted - Baluch 1 Peaked - Ghilzai 1 1 1 1 Black Tents Peaked - Brahui 1 1 Jugi 1 1 1 1 Jat 1 1 1 1 Tents Cotton Herati tent 1 Circular - Lacheq 1 Circular – Chapari 1 without centerpole Rectangular – 1 Kapa-i-arab Huts Ovate-Oblong - 1 Kodai Ovate-Oblong - 1 1 1 Kapa

Samoch 1 Cave

Gumbazi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tazar 1 1 1 Fired brick vaults

Curved roof 1 1 Construction and timber beams Brick or Pakhsa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 walls (rural) Brick or Pakhsa walls (bamyan variant) Brick or Pakhsa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 walls (urban) Concrete block 1 and mud Concrete blocks 1 and cement Steel frame 1

Flat roof Construction Massive stone 1 1 1 1 1 1 walls Timber and stone 1 1 walls Shervani roof 1 1 Brick and wood frame walls 1 1 1 1 1 (Kabuli house)

99 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 ANNEX II: SECONDARY DATA REVIEW

As noted in the Methodology section, REACH consulted three main sources for identifying the shelter type variations for the study: Afghanistan: An atlas of indigenous domestic architecture, by Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Encyclopædia of Vernacular architecture of the world (Vol. 2) by Oliver, P. 1997, and The Encyclopædia Iranica. The shelter types identified in these three sources are listed below. During primary data collection, REACH field teams identified several new shelter types, which were added to the sampling frame, and noted as, "REACH field observations, 2020."

Shelter Type Shelter Type Variation Assessed Sources Vaulted - Durrani  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica

Vaulted - Baluch  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica

Black Tents Peaked - Ghilzai  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Peaked - Brahui  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Encyclopædia Iranica Taimani  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Encyclopædia Iranica Jugi  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Cotton Tents Jat  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Herati tent  REACH field observations, 2020 Domical - Double-tier lattice  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Yurts Domical - Single-tier lattice  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Conical - Firozkahi  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Circular - Kapa-i-Chamshi  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Circular - Lacheq  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Circular – Chapari with centerpole  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Circular – Chapari without centerpole  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Huts Kana-i-Kirga  Oliver P. ed. 1997; Encyclopædia Iranica Rectangular – Kapa-i-arab  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Ovate-Oblong - Kodai  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Ovate-Oblong - Kodik  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Ovate-Oblong - Kapa  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Cave Samoch  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Gumbazi  Szabo and Barfield, 1991

Curved roof Tazar  REACH secondary data review, 2020 Construction Fired brick vaults and ribs  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Fired brick vaults and timber beams  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Brick or Pakhsa walls (rural)  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Brick or Pakhsa walls (bamyan variant)  REACH field observations, 2020 Brick or Pakhsa walls (urban)  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Concrete block and mud  REACH field observations, 2020

Flat roof Concrete blocks and cement  REACH field observations, 2020 Construction Steel frame  REACH field observations, 2020 Massive stone walls  Szabo and Barfield, 1991 Timber and stone walls  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997 Shervani roof  REACH field observations, 2020 Brick and wood frame walls (Kabuli house)  Szabo and Barfield, 1991; Oliver P. ed. 1997

100 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 ANNEX III: FGD TOOL

Research Sub- Level of SUBQ# Questionnaire QUESTION Probes Method questions question Analysis

Shelter A.1.1. Shelter type What is the shelter type that you are assessing? Select One type Shelter Shelter type variation What is the variation of the shelter type? Select One type A.1.2. Male; Gender What gender is the group that you are interviewing? Select One Female Enter Enter the code of the interview according to the A.1.3 Enter shelter code Text shelter requested criteria (Shelter type - district - gender) code Metadata Metadata

Province Shelter A.1.4 Shelter location Where is the shelter located? District type Village Shelter A.1.5. Shelter mobile Is the shelter mobile (e.g., it can be moved? ) Select One type Is this the most common shelter type in the area? Shelter B.1.1 FGD What other shelter types are there? type Are there other shelter types or variations that you Shelter B.1.2 would have preferred to build (permanent, flat roof, FGD type What are the reasons that you tent, etc.)? What are they? chose to build this particular Why do you wish that you could build a different Shelter B.1.3 shelter type? FGD preferences shelter (more expensive, stronger, larger, etc.) ? type If mobile shelter – if you had the opportunity to Shelter B.1.4 have a more permanent shelter, would you use it? FGD type Shelter construction methods and Would you still migrate to new locations? Why? Shelter B.2.1 Why did you use the materials that you did? FGD type What materials did you use to Does using or collecting any of these materials construct your shelter (list the cause any problems for the surrounding area? Shelter B.2.3 FGD main materials used, covering (For example, soil erosion, prices went up, type the following categories: 1) deforestation, erosion, waste)? Fabrics (felt, cotton, wool), 2) Wood (planks, poles, timber), Do using these materials for shelters provide any benefits for the surrounding area? (For example, Shelter B.2.4 3) Masonry (bricks, cement, FGD pakhsa), 4) Reeds (chegh, the need for materials created new jobs, reduced type Shelter materials buria), 5) Rope (rope, string) insect infestation, or made the area safer) and other materials (nails, steel What better practices do you think could be done

maintenance, and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? maintenance, and repair by communities region across to improve the materials and construction practices Shelter What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, What differences B.2.5 I Beams, etc.) FGD for the materials to make the shelters safer or less type environmentally or socially damaging?

101 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Research Sub- Level of SUBQ# Questionnaire QUESTION Probes Method questions question Analysis Do households usually share their plot with other Shelter B.3.1 FGD Are any shelter or plot households? Why or why not? type design choice made to resist Are shelters connected to other shelters or very natural disasters in the area Shelter B.3.2 close together, or do households live far away from FGD (including design changes to type each other? Why? the foundation, walls, roof, arrangement Are there trees or vegetation in the plot? Are they structure, or connections)? If so, Shelter

B.3.3 Plot organization and used in any way to improve the plot's resilience or FGD what design choices are made? type environmental comfort? How often do you experience a natural disaster Shelter B.4.1 FGD that damages the shelter? type For each type of natural disaster (flooding, Are any shelter or plot earthquake, sandstorms, wind, blizzards, Shelter B.4.2 design choice made to resist landslides, etc.), what type of techniques FGD type natural disasters in the area (construction or modifications) do you do to help (including design changes to strengthen the structure and prevent damage? the foundation, walls, roof, When a shelter is damaged by natural disasters, Shelter B.4.3 structure, or connections)? If so, FGD what design choices are made? are you able to repair it? Why or why not? type What are the most needed items in order to repair Shelter disaster risk reduction Shelter B.4.4 or help prevent damage to your shelter? Are you FGD type able to access them easily? Why or why not? region across Afghanistan? region across What do you do to keep the shelter warm in Shelter B.5.1 the winter (shelter modifications, insulation, FGD type construction, etc.)? Are you able to access all of the materials needed Shelter B.5.2 FGD to keep the shelter warm? Why or why not? type 3. How is the shelter designed What do you do to keep the shelter cool during Shelter B.5.3 to be comfortable to live for all the summer (shelter modification, ventilation, FGD type times/seasons of the year? construction, etc.)? Seasonality Are you able to access all of the materials needed Shelter B.5.4 to keep the shelter cool during the summer? Why FGD type or why not? What could be done to make these materials Shelter B.5.5 FGD What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, and repair by communities What differences easier to access? type

102 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 ANNEX IV: KII TOOL

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Shelter M.1.1 Engineer ID Integer N/A Type

N/A N/A Variation My name is [[name]] and I work for ACTED. On behalf of UNHCR and the Emergency Shelter and NFI Cluster, we are conducting an assessment of local shelter types across Afghanistan. As part of this assessment we would like to photograph your shelter and draw architectural designs of it, as well as ask you a few questions about the construction, maintenance, and repair of your shelter, as well as how you keep it comfortable to live in during different weather and seasons. The information will be Shelter M.1.2 used by UNHCR and other NGOs to adjust their emergency and transitional shelter Type responses to better reflect the construction of local shelter types around Afghanistan. Variation This assessment should take 20 to 30 minutes. Any information that you provide will be confidential and anonymous. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer Metadata any or all of the questions; however, we hope that you will participate since your views are important. Participation in the survey does not have any impact on whether you or

N/A N/A your family receive assistance. Do you have any questions? M.1.3 Yes Shelter Do you consent to Select One Type M.1.4 participate in this survey? No N/A N/A Variation

Shelter M.1.5 Are you a shelter expert Yes Select One Type within the community Variation

M.1.6 Shelter Expert N/A No Black tents (Goat-hair palas) Cotton tents (Manufactured and scavenged materials) Yurts (Felt and wood lattice frame) Shelter What is the shelter type A.1.1. Select One Huts (wood frame and felt, palas, or reed Type that you are assessing? roof) Variation Curved roof construction (permanent shelter with round roof) Flat roof construction (permanent shelter

Shelter type Shelter type with flat roof)

What is the shelter type Shelter List of shelter variations based on shelter A.1.2 variation that you are Select One Type type assessing? Variation Shelter type variation Shelter type variation

Province Province Shelter Where is the shelter A.1.4 District District type located? variation Shelter location Shelter Location Village Village Enter the code of the Enter

construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s construction costs across all of A.1.3 interview according to the Calculate Calculate shelter requested criteria code Enter shelter code Shelter Code

Yes Shelter Is the shelter mobile (e.g., A.1.5. Select One type it can be moved? ) What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related What are the different No

Shelter mobile Shelter is Mobile variation

103 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level In this section, please Shelter record all of the different Note N/A Type types of materials used to Variation N/A0 construct the shelter Yes Shelter Fabric Sheets Select One Type No Fabric Sheets Used Variation Yes Shelter Wood Select One Type No Wood Wood Used Variation Yes Shelter A.2.1. Masonry Select One Type No Variation Masonry Used Yes Shelter Reeds Select One Type No Reeds Used Variation Yes Shelter Rope Select One Type No Rope Used Variation

Yes Shelter Other Materials Select One Type Variation

Materials Used Other Materials Used No

Fabric Sheets Note N/A N/A N/A Goat Hair (Palas) A.3.10 Shelter What materials did you Select Felt Mat Type use? Multiple Canvas / Cotton Cloth Variation

Fabric Sheets Used Tarpaulin / Plastic Sheet It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.3.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Fabric Sheets Reasons Use for Other (Specify) Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.3.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple Specially imported Variation What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different

Fabric Location Sheets Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.3.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Fabric Sheets availability and Preference Fabric Sheets Preferred that you did?

104 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Goat Hair (Palas) Shelter What materials would you Select Felt Mat A.3.5. Type have preferred to use? Multiple Canvas / Cotton Cloth Variation

Specific Fabric Sheets Preferred Tarpaulin / Plastic Sheet We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.3.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Fabric Sheets Preferred not Used Other (specify) Wood Note N/A Wood Pole Wood Plank Wood Beam (Timber) Wood struts (yurt or hut roof) Wood Lattice Frame (Yurt) A.4.1. Shelter What materials did you Select Wooden boughs / hoops Type use? Multiple Forked / T-bar pole (Sotun) Variation Tent Pole Bamboo Pole Tree trunk Tamarisk bundles

Wood Used Wood Tamarisk bough It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.4.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Wood Reasons for Use Wood Other (Specify) Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.4.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple

What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different Specially imported Variation

Wood Location Wood Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.4.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Wood material availability and Preference Wood Wood Preferred that you did?

105 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Wood Pole Wood Plank Wood Beam (Timber) Wood struts (yurt or hut roof) Wood Lattice Frame (Yurt) Shelter What materials would you Select Wooden boughs / hoops A.4.5. Type have preferred to use? Multiple Forked / T-bar pole (Sotun) Variation Tent Pole Bamboo Pole Tree trunk Tamarisk bundles

Specific Wood Preferred Specific Tamarisk bough We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.4.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Wood material availability and Preference Wood Preferred Not Used Wood Other (specify) Masonry Note N/A N/A N/A Sun-Dried Bricks Fired Bricks Mud Packed mud (Pakhsa) Stones A.5.1. Shelter What materials did you Select Gypsum mortar Type use? Multiple Clay Mortar Variation Earth/Potsherds Cement Sand Kaghil (Mud plaster with straw)

Masonry Used Mud (mortar) It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool)

What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.5.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Masonry availability and Preference Masonry Reasons for Used Other (Specify)

106 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.5.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple Specially imported Variation

Masonry Locations Masonry Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.5.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Masonry Preferred that you did? Sun-Dried Bricks Fired Bricks Mud Packed mud (Pakhsa) Stones Shelter What materials would you Select Gypsum mortar A.5.5. Type have preferred to use? Multiple Clay Mortar Variation Earth/Potsherds Cement Sand Kaghil (Mud plaster with straw)

Specific Masonry Preferred Mud (mortar) We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.5.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Masonry availability and Preference Masonry Preferred Not Used Other (specify)

Reeds Note N/A Reed Mats (Buria) Woven Reeds (Chegh) A.6.1. Reed Thatching Shelter What materials did you Select Bundled Reeds Type use? Multiple

What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different Loose Reeds Variation Tamarisk mats

Reed availability and Preference Reeds Used Straw

107 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.6.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Reeds Reasons for Use Other (Specify) Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.6.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple Specially imported Variation

Reeds Locations Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.6.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Reeds Preferred that you did? Reed Mats (Buria) Woven Reeds (Chegh) Reed Thatching Shelter What materials would you Select A.6.5. Bundled Reeds Type have preferred to use? Multiple Loose Reeds Variation Tamarisk mats

Specific Reeds Preferred Straw We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.6.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Reed availability and Preference Reeds Preferred Not Used Other (specify)

Rope Note N/A Twine/Cotton String A.7.1. Shelter What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different What materials did you Select Guy Rope Type use? Multiple Wool tension band (roof) Variation

Rope availability and Preference Rope Used Wool tension band (walls)

108 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.7.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Rope Reasons for Use Other (Specify) Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.7.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple Specially imported Variation

Rope Location Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.7.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Rope Preferred that you did? Twine/Cotton String Shelter What materials would you Select Guy Rope A.7.5. Type have preferred to use? Multiple Wool tension band (roof) Variation

Specific Rope Preferred Wool tension band (walls) We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.7.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Rope availability and Preference Rope Preferred Not Used Other (specify) Other Materials Note N/A N/A N/A Steel I-beam Leather thongs Tent stakes A.8.1. Shelter What materials did you Select Steel pins Type use? Multiple Nails Variation What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different Corner Brace Rain Gutter (metal)

Other material Preference availability and Other Materials Used Other (Specify)

109 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why did you use these Select It is mobile/not mobile A.8.2. Type materials? Multiple It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Other Materials Reasons for Use Other (Specify) Purchased in the local market Collected from nature Shelter Where did you get the Select A.8.3. Inherited Type materials? Multiple Specially imported Variation

Other Location Materials Other (specify) Are there materials that Yes Shelter you would have preferred A.8.4. Select One Type to use instead of the ones No Variation Other Materials Preferred that you did? Steel I-beam Leather thongs Tent stakes Shelter What materials would you Select Steel pins A.8.5. Type have preferred to use? Multiple Nails Variation Corner Brace Rain Gutter (metal)

SpecificPreferred Other Materials Other (Specify) We could not afford the material Insects eat the materials We could not afford the labour The Materials were not available Shelter Why did you not use the Select A.8.6. The materials were not appropriate for the Type preferred materials? Multiple climate or environment Variation The materials do not last long enough The materials are difficult to repair or maintain

Other material availability and Preference Not Preferred Materials Other Specific Used Other (specify) You will now be asked about how the plot is arranged. These questions involve all N/A N/A buildings located on the plot, and not just the shelter. Fields Sloped Land or hillside

What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill-related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s provinces? Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill-related construction costs across all of What are the different Top of a hill Shelter What type of land is the B.1 Select One Type plot located on? Next to a River/Valley Variation Next to Lake

Other (Specify) Plot information Plot location

110 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Protected from rain or wind More resistant to natural disasters Shelter Why is the shelter Select (flooding, earthquakes, etc.) B.2 Type constructed there? Multiple Inherited from family or marriage Variation Only land available

Plot location reason Other (specify) Shelter/plot is far from other household's plots, and has space between both How close is the shelter/ Shelter/plot is next to other households Shelter plot of land to those plots B.3 Select One Type shelters from other Shelter/plot is constructed between Variation households? existing plots Shelters are connected to other

Plot distance household's shelters on the same plot How many shelters that Shelter people sleep in or live in B.4 Integer Enter Integer Type are located on the plot of Variation Number of shelters on Plot land? Storage building Toilet/latrine Water source Kitchen Shelter What types of buildings Select B.5 Separate shelter for women/men Type are located on each plot? Multiple Separate shelter for adults/children Variation Guest house Animal housing

Buildings on plot Other (specify) Exposed to wind Prone to flooding Are there any Exposed to avalanche Shelter Select B.6 environmental concerns Earthquakes are common Type Multiple about the plot of land? Exposed to cold/blizzards Variation Exposed to sun/drought

Plot location environment concerns Other (specify) Exposed to criminals/crime Are there any security or Exposed to armed groups/conflict Shelter access concerns about Select Far from roads or markets B.7 Type the location of this plot of Multiple Far from public services (water, sanitation, Variation land? health, schools)

Plot Information Plot location concerns social Other (specify)

What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, and repair by communities region across What differences You will now be asked about your shelter preference. This can be the shelter you Note would prefer to build, but don't have the resources or materials to build instead. Are there other shelter Yes C.1.1. Shelter types or variations that Select One Type you would have preferred No Variation Shelter preferences Shelter Other shelter type preferred variations to build?

111 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Black Tent Cotton Tent Shelter Which shelter type would Yurt C.1.2. Select One Type you prefer to build? Hut Variation Curved roof construction

Shelter type preferred Flat roof construction Which shelter type Shelter List of shelter variations based on shelter variation would you prefer Select One Type type to build? Variation It is safer/more secure It protects against the climate better C.1.3. (keeps shelter warm/cool) Shelter Why do you prefer a It is mobile/not mobile Select One Type different shelter type? It lasts a longer time Variation It requires less repairs/maintenance It is part of our culture

Shelter type variation preferred Shelter type variation preference reason Other (Specify) Households do not have enough money to build the preferred shelter The materials for the preferred shelter are not available Why did you not build Shelter Select It is mobile/not mobile C.1.4. your preferred shelter Type Multiple Skills needed to make repairs maintenance type instead? Variation are not available Shelter type is not accepted by the culture No land was available

Reason for not building shelter type preferred Other (Specify) Everyone uses the same shelter type Almost everyone uses the same shelter type Most households use this shelter type Shelter How common is this C.1.6. Select One Type shelter in this area? About half of households use this shelter Type Variation Some, but not most, households use this shelter type

Shelter type prevalence Very few households use this shelter type We think this is the best shelter for this environment We want a better shelter, but cannot afford the materials or construction costs Why is this particular This shelter fits our lifestyle best (mobile/ Shelter

What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, and repair by communities region across What differences C.1.7. shelter used by the Select One sedentary) Type household? Living in this shelter is part of our culture/ Variation our people use this shelter We inherited this shelter from a relative or friend

Shelter preferences Reason shelter type chosen Other (Specify)

112 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Is this shelter used in Yes Shelter C.1.8 any other provinces in Select One No Type Afghanistan? Don't Know Variation In which other provinces Shelter in Afghanistan do you Select C.1.9. List of Provinces Type know that this shelter is Multiple Variation Shelter preferences Other locations shelter type is used used? If the shelter is damaged, Yes Shelter E.2.7. are you able to repair it by Select One Type No

Shelter can be repaired yourself? Variation Requires special skills the household does not have. I don’t have the money to repair the shelter. Shelter If not, why are you not able Select E.2.8. The materials are difficult to find. Type to repair it by yourself? Multiple If the shelter is damaged it is no longer Variation safe to live in

Reasons why cannot shelter be repaired occupants by Other (Specify) Yes Are any special skills Shelter E.2.9. required in order to repair Select One Type the shelter? No Variation Special skills are required to repair shelter Design of shelter repair Weaving chegh/buria/thatching Construction of shelter foundation/walls/ frame What special skills are Shelter Select Making mortar, pakhsa, or bricks E.2.10 needed to repair the Type Multiple shelter? Yurt making (wool bands, wood lattice, Variation roofing, etc.) Roof construction Finding shelter materials

Shelter repair Types of special skills repair shelter required to Other Now I would like to ask about how your household prepared for weather extremes, Note including disasters and winters. Do any natural Yes F.1 disasters commonly Shelter occur here? (example: Select One Type earthquake, flooding, No Variation

Natural disasters can shelter affect sandstorms, etc.) Earthquake Flooding Shelter Which types of natural Select Sandstorm F.2 Type disasters occur here? Multiple Blizzard Variation Landslide

Natural disaster preparedness Types disasters of that shelter affect natural can Other

113 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Design shelter to resist natural disasters Reinforce foundations/load bearing What do you do to help components (e.g. sandbags or braces) Shelter your shelter resist the Select Move household to a different location F.3 Type effects of the natural Multiple where natural disasters are less likely Variation disaster? Use disaster – resistant shelter materials Nothing

Methods used to help shelter withstand disasters Other Yes Do you do anything to Shelter F.4 prepare your household Select One Type for winter? No Variation winterization preparation Upgrade shelter construction (such as thickening walls or roof or adding Palas to tent) to trap heat Reinforce foundations/load bearing components (e.g. sandbags or braces) Shelter Select Move to warmer parts of Afghanistan or F.5 What do you do? Type Multiple another country

and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? and repair by communities region across Variation Add insulation to household to trap heat Use more blankets to keep household warmer Buy stove and fuel What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance, What differences

Natural disaster preparedness Methods of winterization preparation Other Please take a GPS point F.6 of the location of the GPS N/A N/A

Location Location shelter You have now completed the architectural survey. Please continue with the Metadata F.7 Key Informant Interview note N/A N/A (KII) tool on the same shelter, to acquire

N/A N/A additional information.

114 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020 ANNEX V: SHELTER DESIGN TOOL

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Shelter Engineer ID Integer N/A Type

N/A N/A Variation My name is [[name]] and I work for ACTED. On behalf of UNHCR and the Emergency Shelter and NFI Cluster, we are conducting an assessment of local shelter types across Afghanistan. As part of this assessment we would like to photograph your shelter and draw architectural designs of it, as well as ask you a few questions about the construction, maintenance, and repair of your shelter, as well as how you keep it comfortable to live in during different weather and seasons. The information will be Shelter used by UNHCR and other NGOs to adjust their emergency and transitional shelter Type responses to better reflect the construction of local shelter types around Afghanistan. Variation This assessment should take 20 to 30 minutes. Any information that you provide will be confidential and anonymous. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions; however we hope that you will participate since your views are important. Participation in the survey does not have any impact on whether you or

N/A N/A your family receive assistance. Do you have any questions? Do you consent to Yes Shelter Select M.1.1 participate in this Type One No N/A N/A survey? Variation

Are you a shelter Shelter Select Yes M.1.2 expert within the Type One community Variation

Shelter Expert N/A No Black Tent Metadata Cotton Tent What is the shelter Shelter Select Yurt M.1.3 type that you are Type One assessing? Hut Variation Curved roof construction

Shelter type Shelter type Flat roof construction

What is the shelter Shelter Select M.1.4 type variation that List of shelter variations based on shelter type Type One you are assessing? Variation Shelter type variation Shelter type variation

Province Province Shelter Where is the shelter M.1.5 District District type located? variation Shelter location Shelter Location Village Village

Enter the code Enter of the interview M.1.6 Text Text shelter according to the code requested criteria Enter shelter code Shelter type – variation Shelter – District – number date Region –

115 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Take A.1.1 Take a photo of the front of the shelter Front Photo Take A.1.2 Take a photo of the left or right side of the shelter Left/ Right Side Photo Photography Photo Take a photo showing the back wall and ceiling Take A.1.3 from inside the shelter. Photo Inside - Ceiling

Take a photo showing the back wall and floor from Take

Inside - Floor inside the shelter. Photo A.1.4 You will now be asked to make an architectural sketch of four perspectives (front, side, roof, inside floor plan) of the shelter you are observing. You will draw this on paper, and Note

Shelter photos Note send scans of the drawing after you complete the survey. Please draw the front elevation of the shelter. Remember to include all measurement, materials, A.2.1 Note and quantities and dimensions of the materials

Front Elevation used. Please draw the side elevation of the shelter. Remember to include all measurement, materials, A.2.2 Note and quantities and dimensions of the materials

Side Elevation used.

provinces? Please draw the roof plan of the shelter. It should be drawn from a perspective of looking at the structure from above, including all of the materials inside of A.2.3 Note the roof. Remember to include all measurements, materials, and quantities and dimensions of the Shelter Roof Design Architectural materials used. type drawing variation Please draw the floor plan of the shelter. It should be drawn from a perspective of looking at the floor A.2.4 from above. Remember to include all measurement, Note materials, locations of doors and walls, and

Inside Plan Floor quantities and dimensions of the materials used. Please draw a cross-section of the shelter. This should be a side view of the shelter, with a view A.2.5 Note inside the shelter floors, walls, and roof, in order to

Cross Section show the materials inside of them. Please draw a top-down view of the entire plot. This should have the compound walls, and any other A.2.6 buildings that are also on the plot, including other Note What are the different shelter typologies and their associated material and skill related construction costs across all of Afghanistan’s Afghanistan’s shelter typologies and their associated material skill related construction costs across all of What are the different shelters, storage buildings, water points, latrines/

Shelter design perspectives Plot Plan toilets, and public spaces. Please check to ensure that all four shelter design A.3.1 Note perspectives have been drawn and labelled. Please check to ensure than all items used in the A.3.2 shelter designs are labelled, and their sizes and Note Drawing dimensions have been recorded. Drawing Reminder Reminder Please check to make sure the dimensions of all A.3.3 sides of each of the shelter designs have been Note recorded. material and skill related

What are the different shelter What are the different Please re-check the list of all materials used, and typologies and their associated A.3.4 Note Shelter design perspectives Drawing Reminder include the quantity of items.

116 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level

Now we will ask about building practices in the area across several different dimensions, A.4.1 including foundation, structure, roofing, walls, windows and doors, and connections. Note Please answer to the best of your knowledge.

A.4.2 You will now be asked about the foundation of the shelter Note No, shelter is built directly on the ground without any extra materials or elevation Is the shelter built Shelter is built on top of other materials (wood, directly on the Shelter Select stone, etc.) but not elevated off of the ground A.3.1 ground, or elevated Type One from the ground in Shelter is elevated by wood (either stilts or wood Variation any way? frame) Shelter is built on a plinth, or a foundation that raises the shelter off the ground Wood Dirt or earth mound If a plinth is used, Shelter Select Bricks (either sun-dried or fired) A.3.2 what is the plinth Type One made of? Cement Variation Stones Other (specify) Protects shelter from natural disasters (flooding, avalanche, etc.) Protects shelter from environment (insects, animals, wind, etc.) Shelter Why is the shelter Select A.3.3 Keeps shelter stable and stronger Type elevated? One Makes shelter last longer Variation Is it a part of the local culture It is a status symbol/done to show wealth or power Other (specify) It is too expensive to build The materials to build it are not available Shelter Why is the shelter Select A.3.4 We do not build them as part of our culture Type not elevated? One Protection is not needed Variation

Shelter design practices Foundation Other (specify) You will now be asked about the main structure of the shelter, including the frame, how A.4.1 Note the structure is reinforced and strengthened and the materials Does the shelter Yes have an kind of Shelter Select A.4.2 frame around which Type One the walls and ceiling No Variation are constructed? Wood

What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities region across What differences Steel/ other metal Shelter What material is the Select Bamboo A.4.3 Type frame made from? One Stone Variation Rope (shelter tied down)

Shelter design practices Main Structure Other (specify)

117 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Is anything done to Yes Shelter reinforce the frame/ Select A.4.4 Type structure to make it One No Variation stronger? Protects shelter from natural disasters (flooding, avalanche, etc.) Protects shelter from environment (insects, animals, wind, etc.) Shelter Why is the shelter Select A.4.5 Keeps shelter stable and stronger Type reinforced? One Makes shelter last longer Variation Is it a part of the local culture It is a status symbol/done to show wealth or power Other (specify) It is too expensive to build The materials to build it are not available Shelter Why is the shelter Select A.4.6 We do not build them as part of our culture Type not reinforced? One Protection is not needed Variation

Main Structure Other (specify) A.5.1 You will now be asked about the roof of the structure Note Dome Conical Shelter What shape is the Select A.5.2 Flat Type roof? One Angled Variation Round (cylinder) Protects from rain/snow build-up Shelter stays cool/warm more easily Easy to maintain Shelter Why is the roof Select A.5.3 More resistant to natural disasters Type shaped this way? Multiple Is it a part of the local culture Variation It is a status symbol/done to show wealth or power

Roof Other (specify) A.6.1 You will now be asked about the walls of the shelter Note Round Shelter What shape are the Select A.6.2 Flat Type walls? One Other (specify) Variation More resistant to wind More resistant to snow/rain build up Easier to maintain or repair Lasts longer without repairs Shelter Why is the wall Select More affordable

What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities region across What differences A.6.3 Type shaped like this? Multiple Keeps shelter cooler in summer and warmer in Variation winter Shelters are constructed this way as part of our culture

Shelter design practices Walls Other (specify)

118 AFGHANISTAN LOCAL ARCHITECTURE REVIEW November 2020

Sub- Data Research Indicator Question IN # Indicator Question Question Label collection questions / Variable Type / Variable level Yes Shelter Are there windows Select A.6.4 Type in the shelter? One No Variation Feature weakens the structure walls Feature makes the shelter too cold in winter or too warm in summer We don't have materials for the feature Shelter Select The community does not have anyone with the A.6.5 If not, why not? Type Multiple skills to make the feature Variation The feature is unnecessary It is not part of the culture No reason. It just wasn't done Other (specify) Do the windows Yes Shelter Select A.6.6 have frame (jambs/ Type One lintels)? No Variation Feature weakens the structure walls Feature makes the shelter too cold in winter or too warm in summer We don't have materials for the feature Shelter Select The community does not have anyone with the A.6.7 If not, why not? Type Multiple skills to make the feature Variation The feature is unnecessary It is not part of the culture No reason. It just wasn't done

Shelter design practices Walls Other (specify) You will now be asked about connections, including ties, nails, and anything used to A.7.1 Note hold different parts of the shelter together. Leather thongs Nails What things are String Shelter used to connect the Select A.7.2 Pins Type different parts of the One Variation structure? Rope Glue Other (specify) The connection absorbs shocks better The connection can hold more weight The materials are cheaper/easier to find The materials are newer Shelter Why are these Select The materials are used for cultural reasons A.7.3 Type

What differences exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities by region across Afghanistan? exist in shelter type, materials, methods of construction, maintenance , and repair by communities region across What differences materials used? One Variation

Other (specify) Shelter design practices Connections

119